### E RNEY'GENERAL TE~cAS

Mr. Frank R. Booth ExecutiveDirector Texas Water~RightsCommission Austin, Texas OpinionNo. 

### C-624
Re: Whether the maxlmum use fees prescribedby Article 7532 V.C.S. are applicableto each applicationfor a permit or whether the use of the word "project"in Article 

### 7534 V.C.S. means that a combined maximum fee of $1,500 applies to all three applications. Dear Mr. Booth:
In your opinion request,we mere advised that the Commission has received three applicationsfor permits to use and divert mater from the Cooper reservoir in the Sulphur River Basin. The Sulphur River MunicipalWater Districthas applied for a permit to impoundwater and divert it for municipal and lndustrialpurposes. The City of Irving has also applied for a similarpermit, and the North Texas MunicipalWater District has requestedwater for Industrialpurposes only. Your letter further states that the maximum "use" fees under Article 7532, Vernon's

~CivllStatutes;for the Sulphur River Munlolpal Water District and the City of Irvingwould be $1,700 each.
You have requested our opinion as to whether the maxlmum use fees described in Artlole 7532 are applicableto each appllcation for a permit or whether the use of the word "project" in Article 

### 7534,Vernon's Civil Statutes,means that a corn-. bined maximum fee of $1,500 applies to all three applications.
We will not quote all of,Artiole7532. It is sufficientto note thatit provides for a comprehensivescheduleof "filing" fees to be paid to the Board and in addition thereto certain other fees based upon the contemplated use of the water. Said fees are to be paid acquire a water right." "on each applicationfor a permit to

-3028-_ -

Mr. Frank R. Booth, page 2 (C-624)

Five categoriesof water use are listedwith a specific fee for each category. The next to the last paragraph thereof provides: "Themaximum fees for any use of water

under a permit shall not exceed $1,500 and for each additionaluse under the same permit for which such maximum fee is paid the fee shall not exceed $200 in addition to said sum of $1,500." (Emphasis Added) Article 7534 on the other hand, reads, In part, as follows:

"The fees to be paid for filing in the office of the State Board of Water Engineers of applicationsfor permits for the storage,diversionand use of water shall not exceed the sum of $1,500 for ~ne_ssh(~~~~~~~i~~~e~ or proThe term "project"Is defined in Webster's Third International Dictionaryin part as:

"A devised or proposedplan - - R planned undertaking'-- an undertakingdevised to affect the reclamationor improvementof a particulararea of land.- -'
It would thereforeappear that there are two areas of conflict between Articles 7532 and 7534. First: Article 7534 limits the maximum fee to be charged on eona applicationor permit to $1,500,while Article 7532 expresslyauthorizesadditional fees, not to exceed $200, to be charged for each additionaluse of water under the same permit. The additional "use" fees are expresslymade conditional upon the maximum use fee of $1,500 first being paid. Second: Article 7532 provides that the enumeratedfees are-tobe paid to the Board upon "each applicationfor a pe?lt- - -1(, while, if the usual definition is given to the word $roject",Article 7534 would limit the maxlmum fee charged to 1,500 regardlessof the number of applicationsfiled or permits granted. Where there is a clear and lrreaoncilable conflictbetween legislativeenactmentsupon the same subjectmatter, the general rule is that the last expressionof the Legislatureprevails. Halsell v. Texas Water Commission,C3~sS.W.2d1, (Tex. Civ. App., 19b4 f

. . . Sec. 286 states th~X"",s'~o5fl~w~: ; . . ., 477 Statutes,Mr. Frank R. Booth, Page 3 (C-624)

"An implied repeal Is one which takes place when a new law containsprovisionswhich are contrary to, but do not expresslyrepeal, those of a former law - - and a repeal by implicationis as effectiveas an express repeal. Whether ,it has been so repealed is a question of legislativeintent." Articl;r;524swas

ori inally enacted as Section 1, Acts 1920, 36th Leg., ch. & 6, p. 87, and provided for a 7laximum fee of $6,000 upo;'any one application, permit or pro~ject.'.Sections 2 and 3 thereofwere codifiedas Articles 7535 and 7536, Vernon's Civil Statutes. Sei?tion 1 was subsequentlyamended by the Acts of 1923, 38th Leg., ch. 136, p. 281, and the maximum fee was lowered to $1,500. Article 7532 was enacted in1925 as 'Section 4 of the Acts of 1925, 39th Leg., ch. 136, p. 342, amending Section 41 of Acts 1917, 35th Leg., ch. 88, p. 221. The new sectionwas a complete revision of the old section. A new scheduleof rates was applied; the categoriesof water use were expanded;and the last two paragraphsof the present articlewere added. Section 7 of the Acts of 1925 containeda general repealing cause of "all laws In conflictwith the provisionshereof."
A general repealing clause is effective to repeal all prior general laws, or parts thereof,which are repugnant to, and inconsistentand irreconcilable with the repealing statute. 82 C.J.S. 476, statutes, Sea. 285; First National Rank v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co.. 274 S.W. 127 IComm.A DD.. 925); State Board of Insura PP.8 956, n.w.h.). =i. Adams, 316's;w.2a 773-(Texi ii.;.

As noted above, In order for the rule of Implied repeal to apply, the two enactmentsmust be upon the same subject and must be repugnant to, and lntionsistent and lrreooncllable with each other. Articles 7532 and 7534 treat of the same subjectmatter and are repugnant to and Inconsistent with each other. The next to the last paragraph of Article 7532 and Article 7534 both set forth the maximum use fees that the Board may charge and collect. Article 7532 provides that the enumeratedfees shall be paid to the Board upon each application for a permit, while Article 7534 would limit the maxlmum fees to $1,500 on an entire project. If Article 7534 was upheld It could lead to one applicant either paying the entire fee for a project, or the Board attemptingto make some sort of divisionbetween the applicantsbased upon the number of uses each applied for and the amount of water, to be diverted to each use by each applicant. We find no authorization or directionfor such mathematicalaalculations.

-3030-Mr. Frank R. Booth, Page 4 (c-624)

We find that Articles 7532 end 7534 are in irrecoiiclleble conflictand that Article 7534 was lniplledly repealedunder Section 7, of the Acts of 1925. We are of the opinion, therefore,that the maximum use feespzescrlbed by Article 7532 are applicableto each applicationfor a permit to acquire a water right.

Article 7532, V.C.S.; and not particle 7534, V.C.S., governs the Texas Water Rights Commissionon assessingand collectingfees upon applicationsfor permits to acquirewater rights. Articles 7532 and ~7534 being in conflict, Article 7534 was implledlyrepealedby the general repealing clause contained in Acts 1925, 39th Leg., ch. 136, p. 342.

Very truly yours, WAGQONIXR

CARR Attorney General 

# .&(&&&*y

AssistantAttorney ffeneral MS:bp
APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Qeppert, Chairman Llnward Shivers W. 0. Shultz John Reeves Philllp Crawford
APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL By: T. B. Wright .,

-3031-