Board of Water Engineers opinion lo. O-1392 Austin, Texas Re: Whether or not certain study Attention

of Mr. A. H. Dunlap to be made in connection with Red BluffWater Power Control Districtconstitutes "State business"

directly

concerning State Board of Water Engineers; and, whether or not it will bs necessary

for the Board to obtain an opinionfrom the Attorney Gsneralapproving each trip ma& outsideof the State of Texas in connection with such Gentlemen: study.

We have your letterof the fifth of September containing

two questions

to be answered

by this department.

The facts given for our consideration are as follows:
"Through

the agencies

of the National

Resources

Committee, and the U. S. Geological Survey, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, t:.e Federal

Reclamation

Bureau,and the U. S. Army Corps, in cooperation with the States of Texas end New Mexico,a detailed and scientific study and report is underway covering the water resources of the Pecos River and tributaries from the source of said River in New Mexico to its mouth in Texas.

"Thisstudy and report covers:
(a) Salinityof water and sourcesof inflowof salt. (b)Water resources--quantity and quality. (c) Dosses of water and means of prevention. [di pe of water and protection of water supply.
(g) Flood damage. ources,

quantity

and development

of ground

water. (g) The consumation of a Compactbetween the States of Texas and New Mexico for the division of the waters of the Pecce River. (h) Study of development ~of farm areas along the rivervalley by means of pumping water fromwells. (i) Rectification

of sub-irrigation

of town of Pecos CityBoard of Water Bngineers, pega 2 (O-1352)

causedby escape of water from artesian wells.

"The 46th Legislature enacted

S. B. Bo. 49, appropriating the
sum of $30,000.00

for the use of the Red Bluff Water Power Control District. These funds are being used, exclusively, for the purposeof payingTexas' part of the cost of making said study and report. However, it is contemplet@%that part, if not all, of the writer'stravelingaxpulses,and that of his assistant shall be paid from the appropriation made available

to the Stats Board of Water Engineers.

'The very nature of the work, requires that investigations be made in both Wew Mexico and Texas,requiring those engaged in the study to go back and forthbetween these two States. To require the writer and his assistant

to obtainan opinionfrom your Department covering

each trip intoNew Mexicowould be very inconvenient and aausc considerable delay in completing the fieldwork."

In connection

with the above fact6,you ask two questions: (1) whether or not traveling expensesincurred

by a member, of the State Board of Water Engineers and an srsiatant

outsideof the boundariee

of Texas in connection with a joint study and report on the Pecoa River and tributaries, is for State business directlyconcerning the State Board of Water Engineers;

(2) "Whether

said umber and his assistant will be reQuired to obtainan opinionfrom your Department covering

each trip made outside of Texas in connection with said study, under the provisions of paragraph (c), of paragraph headed 'Traveling

Expenses'

of'section

2 of S. B.No. 421"

Your first question dividesitself into two parts, first,
as to whether the trip contemplated by you is "state

business"

and second,

whether it "directly concerns

the State Board of Water Engineers."

In our opinion,

the business

proposed

to be transacted

by your member and an assistant as outlinedin your letter, is such businessas would naturally

arise out of the performance of the public dutiesrecognized by the Constitution of Texas,

Article 59, Sec. (a),which provides that the control,

storing,

preservation

and distribution

of the State's storm and floodwaters and the waters of its rivers and streams,for irrigation,

power and all other usefulpurposes, are public rights and duties,and which authorizes the Legislature

to pass such laws as are appropriate

thereto. See, also,Article 7466, R. C. S. of Texas, 1925.

We find furthersupportfor the above conclusion in Senate Bill 49, Acts RegularSession of the 46th Legislature, Sec. 4, which makes an appropriation

to the particular

project

which you propose to work on, %&I&L~, the Red Bluff Water Power Control District.Board of Water Engineers, page 3 (O-1392)

It is our furtheropinionthat the business proposed

to be attended

to by your member and assistant "directly concerns

the State Board of Water Engineers" becausethe ~business" has to do with exercising the authority and carrying

out the duties,imposed upon said body by law. Articles 7472c, 7472d and 7537a, R. C. S. of Texas, 1925; Sec. 4, Senate Bill 49, Acts RegularSession,46th Legislature, supra.

As we construe

your second question, what you irspt

to know is whether, If on the presenttrip proposedto be made by your member and assistant,

it is necessary

for them to cross the State line more than
once beforereturning to Austin, you will have to obtain the approval of the Attorney

General

prior to each particular crossing,

in order to satisfythe statutory requirement

quotedhereunder.

To answer this question, it is necessary

to construe

Section
2 (cl, "Traveling

Expenses",

SenateBill 427, Acts of the RegularSession, 46th Legislature,

which we~quote in part:
"(c) No traveling

expenses

shallbe incurred

by any employee of any of the departments, or other agencies

of theSovernment,

outside of the boundaries of the State of Texas, except for State business directly

concerning

his own department or agencyand no such expenses shall be paid from State appropriations or out of any local or auxiliary funds by the State Comptroller to an employee of any agency of the Government, until and unlessa written statement, signedby the AttorneySeneral, advising

thet the purposeof the proposed trip, in his opinion,is for said Statebusiness purposes;

which written opinionshellhave been filed in advance

with the State Comptroller, and sigued duplicate thereof with the disbursing officerof such respective agency of the Government."

There are severalpossibleinterpretations of the above provision as appliedto your statment of facts. Did the Legislature intend that a separateletterof approval be obtained

from the Attorney

General each time the State line is crossed by a State employee traveling

on State expenses,

where, as in your case, in making a survey,.it may be necessary

to cross back and forth several times;or, did it only intend that such a letter

be obtained

each time an employeeleft Austin on a trip and that "trip" be construed

to mean each round trip journey from Austin; or, did it intendthat one letter filedwith the State Comptroller

be sufficient

for an indefinite

number of crossings, so long
as the purposes

of the crossings come within the purposeof the partioular trip.

In our opinion, the latter interpretation is the proper one. To arrive at the legislature's intent,

as is necessaryin every case of construction,

we must look not to the one word "tripw, but to the whole bill. In this instance, we need only look to the portionquoted. Evidently,all the'Legisl.ature intended

was that no trip be made out of the State unless its purpose be determined

in advance

by the ~A&orneyGeneral,Roard of Water Engineers, page 4 (O-1392)

to constitute"State busfness". The Legi+atore did not say In so many words that s sepa;ate approval

shouldbe obtained for each individual trip and, In our opinion, to give it that construction, under the facts stated by you, would place a burden on the State Comptroller, the AttorneySeneral

and the department

affected,

not contemplated

by the Legislature.

The Legislature

vestedno disaretion in the AttorneyGeneral
or the Comptroller

as to how many tripe a department couldmake, and properlyso. Neither of these two officers would have authority to pass on the propriety or advisability

of your making a trip so long ss you had the money in your appropriation end the purpose of the trip wss the transaction

of State business. Then, once having obtained the opinion of the AttorneySeneralthat the purposeof a proposed trip was for "State

business

purposes"

and filed it with the Comptroller, it would be requiring

useless,

repetitious

work of all dephtiments concerned

to submit the same identical question

with regard to each Individual crossing

made during the courseof a particular trip, as the answers would of necessity, be identioalwith

the one already in the Comptroller's files. In other words, It Is the 'purpose' of the proposed

trip which the AttorneySeneralmust approve, and not Its propriety or advisability, and once the Attorney General has determined

that said purpose is for "State business purposes", it is not necessary,.in our opinion,

to again seek his opinionapproving each crossing

of tha State l&Won that trip.

In answer to your secondquestion,It is our opinionthat this letter of approvalIs sufficient authority for crossing the State line, at State expense,

as many firms as the ,study requireson this particular trip, for the purposes herednst-sted,

and concerning

the Red BluffWater Power Control

District.

This opinioncoversonly the question of the necessity

of obtainingthe AttorneySeneral's approval

of each crossing

of the State line made during the courseof the proposed "trip?described in your letter. We are not passingon the question of the necessity

of obtaining the approval

of the Attorney

Generalfor subsequent"trips"from Austin, for the same purposeand in connection with the same project. Trustingthat this satisfactorily answers

your inquiry,

we are

Yours very truly

ATTORkEYOENERALOF TEXAS

JN:E?&zbr AETmED SEP 11, 1939
/s/ GeraldC. Mann A!iTORNSY

SRRRRALOPTEUS By JamesNoel /s/ James Roe1 Assistant