The Attorney General of Texas 

octdser 14, 1980 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Mr. Doyle W. Neighbours 

Criminal District Attorney 

Brazoria County Courthouse 

Angleton, Texas ‘7’7515 

Opinion No. I+%+257 

Re: Responsibility for construction 

and maintenance of drainage district 

bridges on county roads 

Dear Mr. Neighbours: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibility for 

construction and maintenance of bridges on county roads in special districts. 

You first ask who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of 

bri%es over watercourses in drainage districts, municipal utility districts, 

and water improvement districts. 

Section 56.121 of the Water Code provides that the board of a drainage 

district: 

shall build necessary briees and culverts across or 

over canals, drains, ditches, laterals, and levees 

which cross a county or public road and shall pay for 

the construction with funds of the district. 

Section 55.166 imposes similar requirements for water improvement 

districts: 

The district shall build necessary bridges and culverts 

across and over district canals, laterals, and ditches 

which cross county or public roads. Funds of the 

district shall be used to construct the briaes and 

culverts. 

Section 54.217 states the following with respect to municipal utility 

districts: 

All districts are given right-of-way along and across 

all public, state, or county roads or highways, but 

they shall restore the roads crossed to their previous 

condition of use, as nearly as possible at the sole 

expense to the district. 

p. 813 
Mr. Doyle W. Neighbours - Page Two (Mk+257) 

Each of these statutes imposes upon the respective special district the duty of building 

bri*es over watercourses which cross county roads. 

Article 2351, V.T.C.S., however, orescribes that a commissioners court shall 

“build bridges and keep them in repair.” In Hidalgo County Water Control & 

Improvement District No. 1 v. Hidalgo County, 134 S.W. 2d 464 (Tex. Civ. App. -San 

Antonio 1939, writ ref’d), the court reconciled this apparent conflict regarding the duty 

of building bri@es: 

. . .the primary duty rests upon the county to build and maintain 

or cause to be built and maintained all bridges necessary to the 

proper operation and maintenance of its roads, and even where 

that duty is delegated to other agencies. . . the primary duty 

still rests upon the county, so that if the secondary agency fails 

and refuses to perform, the county shall nevertheless put in and 

maintain such bri@es, and exact reimbursement from the 

defaulter, through the courts, if necessary. 

134 S.W. 2d at 466. We note that a county “may not recover for expenditures upon 

construction, repair or maintenance of bridges for roads laid out and opened by the 

County across pre-existing district canals.” rd, at 468. 

The court in Hidalgo County also made clear that the requirement of building 

bridges extended to their mamtenance and repair: 

. . .it was the intention of the legislature. . . to require. . . 

districts to restore county roads to the same condition of safety 

in which the districts find and cross them; to relieve the county 

of any expense made necessary by the intrusion of the district 

upon its prior easement. Because of the very nature of said 

intrusion - a sort of legal trespass - the statute by express 

language put the duty upon the district to restore the status quo 

ante, and by implication, to maintain that status so long as the 

district obstructs the free use of the county’s prior easement. 

& We conclude that a special district is charged with the duty of construction and 

maintaining bridges across county roads, but that if the district fails to perform such 

obligation, the county must construct end maintain the bridges, and exact reimbursement from the district. See Attorney General Opinion O-1018 (1939). 

- 

You also ask whether a county may specify replacement specifications for 

bridges over canals. Section 54.2271 of the Water Code makes such a provision for 

municipal utility districts: 

Construction work of a district located wholly or partly outside 

the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city shall meet standards 

established by the commissioners court of the county in which 

the district is located to protect local drainage and to prevent 

flooding in flood-prone areas. 

p. 814 
Mr. Doyle W. Neighbours - Page Three @@-257) 

No such requirement is imposed for drainage ~districts or for water improvement 

districts, however, and in its absence, we do not believe the commissioners court is 

authorized to require compliance with particular specifications. 

SUMMARY 

A special district under the Water Code is charged with the 

duty of constructing and maintaining bridges across county 

roads, but if the district fails to perform such obligation, the 

county must construct and maintain the briclges, and exact 

reimbursement from the district. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMlTTEE 

Susan Garrison, Acting Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Walter Davis 

Rick Gilpin 

p. 815