HE ATTORNSY GENERAL OF T-Ens

AUSTIN. TEXAS 7S711 December 4, 1969

HonorableJohn Allen, Chairman House Conservation and ReclamationCommittee Capitol Station Austin, Texas OpinionNo. M- 530
Re: Constitutionality of H.B. No. 1056, 61st Legislature, 1969 (Chapter438 ::sik79), authorizingtAe City of Rouston to promulgate and enforce safety regulationson the waterways, channels,and turning basins within its jurisdiction; directingthe city to purchase and maintain fire boats; providing that provisions of the bill prevail over provisionsof the city charter in the event of Dear Representative Allen: conflict.
Your recent letter requestedthe opinion of this office as to the constitutionality of H.B. No. 1056, Acts of the 61st Legislature, R.S., 1969. That bill authorizesthe City of Houston to exercise certainpowers concerningfire protectionand related activities,

makes mandatory the purchase and operationof fire boats, would extend the powers of the city beyond its corporateboundaries,and provides that provisionsof the Act will-prevailover provisionsof the city charter in the event of a conflict.

-2524-Representative John Allen,page 2, (M-530)

The statute enactedunder LB. No. 1056 is a local or special law and unconstitutional, for the reason that it purports to regulate the affairs of a single designated city and to effect a change in that cityrs charter,both of which are prohibitedby Article 3, Section 56, Constitutionof the State of Texas. City of Ft. Worth v. Bobbitt, 121 Tex. 14, 36 S.W.2d 476, Hall V. 11 county, 13. 178 (Tex.Civ.App. lgll), aff‘irmed

in Bell County v. Hall, 105 Tex. 558, 153 S.W. 121. Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas,provides in part as follows:

"sec. 56. The Legislatureshall not, except as otherwiseprovided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law, authorizing:

****** "Regulatingthe affairs of counties,cities, towns,wards or school districts;
****** "Incorporating

cities, towns or or changing their charters;" villages,

****** "And in all other cases where a general law

-. _- _ - can be made appllcaole , no local or speczal law shall be enacted;......."
In City of Ft. Worth v. Bobbitt, supra, there is at page 472 the following languageconcerningthe effect of singling out one city in a statute:

"We presume that no one would contend, if the name 'Ft. Worth' had been inserted in the law in place of the stipulation with referenceto population,that the act would be constitutional

.. .....

-2525-. -

Representative

John Allen, page 3, (M-530)

Concerningthe attributesof a local or special law, Hall v. Bell County, supra, at page 183, made the following holding:
"We have already given reasons for holding

that it is a local or special law, and we now add that, as its sole object was to regulate the affairs of Bell County, that fact is conclusiveproof that it is a special law......." With regard to the meanin of the word "regulating," Hall v. Bell County,at page 1 3, 8 declared further: "The word Iregulatingl, as used in the Constitution,

should not be given a narrow or technical signification. If the result of legislationis to repeal or materiallychange any law controlling or affectingthe collection,safekeeping, or disbursementof county funds, such legislaFion,

within the purview of the Constitution,

is a law regulating county affairs........" supplied). (Emphasis

In providing that the provisionsof H.B. No. 1056 would prevail over conflicting provisionsin the city charter, the bill on its face would violate the prohibition of Article 3, Section 56, Constitutionof Texas, against changing the charter of a city.
We are not unmindful of a line of cases holding that a statute is not local or special,even though its performance is confined to a restrictedarea, if the persons or things throughoutthe state are affected thereby, or if it operatesupon a subject in which the people at large are interested. L.C.R.A.v. McGraw, 125 Tex. ;:s;.W.2d629, 636 (1935). 268, At wood V. wilracy county Nav. 284 S.W.2d 275 (Te:.Ci Gii&n county v. A 1955

Wilson~fl~~>!?*25r f 366r.t.i.&ri%)'

, 336 S.W.2d 814 Tex.Civ. f&is, 426 S.W.2d oi;inced, 827

however, that in view

-2526-Representative John Allen,~page4, (M-530)

of the provisions of LB. No. 1056 and the facts under which it would operate, the bill is clearlyunconstitutional as a local or specialbill within the prohibitionsof Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas. SUMMARY Chapter 438, Acts of the 61st Legislature,

R.S., 1969 (H.B,NO. 1056, p, 1479), is unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 56, Constitution of Texas for the reason that it is a local or special law seeking to regulate the affairs of a city and to effect a change in that city's charter. 

## /7

C. MARTIN General of Texas Preparedby James S. Swearingen AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman George Kelton,Vice-Chairman John Reeves Bob Flowers Alfred Walker Bill Corbusler
MEADE F.GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant
NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-2527-