E RNEY'GENERAL 

TE~cAS 

Mr. Frank R. Booth 

Executive Director 

Texas Water~Rights Commission 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. C-624 

Re: Whether the maxlmum use fees 

prescribed by Article 7532 

V.C.S. are applicable to each 

application for 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 applications for permits to use and divert 

mater from the Cooper reservoir in the Sulphur River Basin. 

The Sulphur River Municipal Water District has applied for a 

permit to impound water and divert it for municipal and lndustrial purposes. The City of Irving has also applied for 

a similar permit, and the North Texas Municipal Water District 

has requested water for Industrial purposes only. Your letter 

further states that the maximum "use" fees under Article 7532, 

Vernon's ~Civll Statutes; for the Sulphur River Munlolpal 

Water District and the City of Irving would be $1,700 each. 

You have requested our opinion as to whether the maxlmum use 

fees described in Artlole 7532 are applicable to 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,Artiole 7532. It is sufficient to 

note thatit provides for a comprehensive schedule of "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 application for a permit to 

-3028- 
_ - 

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

Five categories of water use are listed with a specific fee 

for each category. The next to the last paragraph thereof 

provides: 

"The maximum fees for any use of water 

under a permit shall not exceed $1,500 

and for each additional use 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 applications for permits for 

the storage, diversion and 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 

Dictionary in part as: 

"A devised or proposed plan - - R planned 

undertaking'- - an undertaking devised to 

affect the reclamation or improvement of 

a particular area of land.- -' 

It would therefore appear that there are two areas of conflict 

between Articles 7532 and 7534. First: Article 7534 limits 

the maximum fee to be charged on eona application or permit to $1,500, while Article 7532 expressly authorizes additional fees, not to exceed $200, to be charged for each additional use of water under the same permit. The additional 

"use" fees are expressly made conditional upon the maximum 

use fee of $1,500 first being paid. Second : Article 7532 

provides that the enumerated fees are-tobe paid to the Board 

upon "each application for a pe?lt- - -1(, while, if the usual 

definition is given to the word 

$ 

ro ject", Article 7534 would 

limit the maxlmum fee charged to 1,500 regardless of the 

number of applications filed or permits granted. 

Where there is a clear and lrreaoncilable conflict between 

legislative enactments upon the same subject matter, the general rule is that the last expression of the Legislature prevails. Halsell v. Texas Water Commission,C3~sS.W.2d 1, (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 contains provisions which are 

contrary to, but do not expressly repeal, 

those of a former law - - and a repeal by 

implication is as effective as an express 

repeal. Whether ,it has been so repealed 

is a question of legislative intent." 

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 thereof were codified as Articles 7535 and 

7536, Vernon's Civil Statutes. Sei?tion 1 was subsequently amended 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 section was a complete revision of the old section. A new schedule of rates 

was applied; the categories of water use were expanded; and 

the last two paragraphs of the present article were added. 

Section 7 of the Acts of 1925 contained a general repealing 

cause of "all laws In conflict with the provisions hereof." 

A general repealing clause is effective to repeal all prior 

general laws, or parts thereof, which are repugnant to, and 

inconsistent and 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 enactments must 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 

subject matter 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 

enumerated fees 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 attempting to make 

some sort of division between the applicants based 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 direction for such mathematical aalculations. 

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

We find that Articles 7532 end 7534 are in irrecoiiclleble 

conflict and that Article 7534 was lniplledly repealed under 

Section 7, of the Acts of 1925. We are of the opinion, 

therefore, that the maximum use feespzescrlbed by Article 

7532 are applicable to each application for a permit to 

acquire a water right. 

Article 7532, V.C.S.; and not particle 

7534, V.C.S., governs the Texas Water 

Rights Commission on assessing and 

collecting fees upon applications for 

permits to acquire water rights. Articles 7532 and ~7534 being in conflict, 

Article 7534 was implledly repealed by 

the general repealing clause contained 

in Acts 1925, 39th Leg., ch. 136, p. 342. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGQONIXR CARR 

Attorney General 

.&(&&&*y 

Assistant Attorney ffeneral 

MS:bp 

APPROVED 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Qeppert, Chairman 

Llnward Shivers 

W. 0. Shultz 

John Reeves 

Philllp Crawford 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: T. B. Wright ., 

-3031-