# The Attorney General ofTexas
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 ofdrainage district bridges oncounty roads Dear Mr.Neighbours: You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibility for construction and maintenance ofbridges oncounty roads inspecial 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 56.121of the Water Code provides that the board ofadrainage district: shall build necessary briees and culverts across or

over canals, drains, ditches, laterals, and levees which cross a county orpublic road and shall pay for the construction with funds ofthe 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. 813Mr.Doyle W.Neighbours - Page Two (Mk+257)

Each ofthese statutes imposes upon the respective special district the duty ofbuilding 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. 1v. Hidalgo County, 134S.W. 2d464 (Tex. Civ. App. -San Antonio 1939,writ ref’d), the court reconciled this apparent conflict regarding the duty ofbuilding bri@es:

. ..the primary duty rests upon the county tobuild and maintain or cause to be built and maintained all bridges necessary tothe 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, sothat ifthe secondary agency fails and refuses to perform, the county shall nevertheless put inand maintain such bri@es, and exact reimbursement from the defaulter, through the courts, ifnecessary. 134S.W. 2d at 466. Wenote that a county “may not recover for expenditures upon construction, repair or maintenance ofbridges 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 ofbuilding bridges extended totheir mamtenance and repair:

. ..it was the intention of the legislature.
.. to require.
.. districts to restore county roads to the same condition ofsafety inwhich the districts find and cross them; torelieve 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 byimplication, to maintain that status so long asthe district obstructs the free use ofthe county’s prior easement. & We conclude that aspecial district is charged with the duty of construction and maintaining bridges across county roads, but that ifthe 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 ofadistrict located wholly orpartly outside the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city shall meet standards established by the commissioners court of the county in which the district islocated to protect local drainage and to prevent flooding inflood-prone areas.

p. 814Mr.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 torequire compliance with particular specifications. SUMMARY Aspecial district under the Water Code ischarged 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 ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General RICHARD E.GRAY III Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byRick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMlTTEE Susan Garrison, Acting Chairman Jon Bible Walter Davis Rick Gilpin

p. 815