May 5, 1988 

Honorable Ashley Smith Opinion No. JM-896 

Chairman 

Government Organization Re: Whether the city of 

Committee Denison may withdraw from 

Texas House of Representatives the Greater Texoma Utility 

P. 0. BOX 2910 Authority (RQ-1224) 

Austin, Texas 78769 

Dear Representative Smith: 

You ask three questions concerning the withdrawal of 

a city from a special district: 

1. May the city of Denison withdraw from 

the Greater Texoma Utility Authority? 

2. If so, what procedure is required for 

the city of Denison to accomplish withdrawal? 

3. If withdrawal is not available to the 

city of Denison, does the unavailability 

affect the constitutionality of the authority 

as created? 

We understand you to ask whether the city, by virtue of 

its status as a municipal corporation, has the power to 

withdraw from the authority. We conclude that it does not 

and that this fact does not render unconstitutional the 

existence of the authority or the act creating it. 

The Greater Texoma Utility Authority was authorized 

by the legislature in 1979 under the name "Greater Texoma 

Municipal Utility District." Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 

97, at 177. It was renamed in 1983. Acts 1983, 68th 

Leg., ch. 398, at 2160. The authority is a conservation 

and reclamation district created pursuant to article XVI, 

section 59, of the Texas Constitution. Districts created 

pursuant to this provision are declared to be 

governmental agencies and bodies politic and 

corporate with such powers of government and 

p. 4409 
Honorable Ashley Smith - Page 2 (JR-896) 

with the authority to exercise such rights, 

privileges and functions concerning the 

subject matter of this amendment as may be 

conferred by law. 

Tex. Const. art. XVI, 559(b). A conservation and 

reclamation district created by special act of the 

legislature pursuant to this provision is a distinct 

corporate and political entity, separate from other such 

entities with which it may share territory. see Citv of 

Pellv v. Harris Countv Water Control and Imwrovement 

District No. 7, 198 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1946); Harris County 

Flood Control District v. Mann, 140 S.W.Zd 1098 (Tex. 

1940). It stands upon the same footing as counties and 

other political subdivisions and exercises the state's and 

its own police power in performing its governmental 

functions. Banker v. Jefferson Countv Water Control and 

Imnrovement District No. 1, 277 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Civ. App. 

- Beaumont 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 

As a creature of the state, a city cannot usurp 

nowers otherwise conferred upon the legislature. Citv of 

jefferson v. Railroad Commission, 455 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. 

Civ. App. - Austin 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In State ex 

rel. Pan American Production Co. v. Texas Citv, 303 S.W.Zd 

780, 782-783 (Tex. 1957), dism'd, 355 U.S. 603 (1958), the 

Supreme Court noted that the territorial composition of 

municipal corporations is essentially a political question 

to be determined by the leg~islature, quoting Norris v. 

Citv of Waco, 57 Tex. 635 (Tex. 1882). This rule is 

especially relevant to the territorial composition of 

political subdivisions such as conservation and reclamation districts. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, 959(b). To 

that end, the legislature provided for the initial 

composition of the authority and for the annexation of 

additional territory. Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 97, !jZ(a) 

and (b) at 177. The legislature has also prescribed 

procedures for the exclusion of land or other property 

from the authority. Id. 54(a), at 180. Those procedures, 

where applicable, are contained in sections 54.701 through 

54.710 of the Water Code and grant the board of directors 

of the authority the power to exclude land from its 

boundaries. There is no provision authorizing a city to 

unilaterally withdraw from the district, and we have been 

directed to no statute authorizing the same. Comware 

V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-6, §14b (authorizing governing bodies 

of certain cities to exclude the cities from rural fire 

prevention districts with no bonded indebtedness if the 

cities agree to provide fire protection services to the 

p. 4410 
Honorable Ashley Smith - Page 3 UM-896) 

excluded areas); Attorney General Opinion Nos. JM-605, 

JM-453 (1986). Accordingly, your first question is 

answered in the negative. We need not answer your second 

question, since it is predicated on an affirmative answer 

to your first question. 

Regarding your third question, we note that the 

courts have consistently held that municipalities 

claim protection under 

may not 

the federal constitution from the 

P 

r 

state. In Hunter v. Citv of Pittsburah, 207 U.S. 161, 

178-179 (1907), the Supreme Court declared: 

Municipal corporations are political 

subdivisions of the State, created as 

convenient agencies for exercising such of 

the governmental powers of the State as may 

be intrusted to them. . . . The State, 

therefore, at its pleasure may . . . expand 

or contract the territorial area, unite the 

whole or a part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the 

corporation. . . . In all these respects 

the state is supreme, and its legislative 

body, conforming its action to the state 

Constitution, may do 

unrestrained by any provEion 

it will, 

of the 

Constitution of the United States. . . . 

The power is in the State, and those who 

legislate for the State are alone 

responsible for any unjust or oppressive 

exercise of it. 

See also Williams v. Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933); 

Trenton v. New Jersev, 262 U.S. 182 (1923): Newark v. New 

Jersev, 262 U.S. 192 (1923). 

Texas courts have held that municipalities have no 

inherent right of local self-government that is beyond the 

control of the state. State ex rel . Burnet Countv 

Burnet Countv Hoswital Authoritv 495 S.W.2d 

(Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1973, wri; ref'd 

300, 3;, 

n.r.e.). As to 

cities exercising powers pursuant to article XI, section 

5, of the Texas Constitution (the home rule amendment), we 

note that such powers are limited by their 

the constitution or general laws. 

charters or by 

Lower Colorado River 

Authoritv v. Citv of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 

1975). As we have already noted, article XVI, section 

59, of the constitution authorizes the legislature to 

pass laws creating and implementing conservation and 

p. 4411 
Honorable Ashley Smith - Page 4 (JM-896) 

, 

reclamation districts. The legislature has prescribed the 

methods whereby land may be excluded from the Greater 

Texoma Utility Authority. Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 97, 

54(a), at 180. Consequently, we cannot 

failure to provide 

say that the 

withdraw from the 

cities the power to unilaterally 

authority renders unconstitutional its 

creation and continued operation. 

SUMMARY 

The city of Denison, Texas, may not 

unilaterally withdraw from the Greater 

Texoma Utility Authority. The failure of 

the legislature to provide for such 

withdrawal does not render unconstitutional 

the creation or continued operation of the 

authority. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

LOU MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Steve Aragon 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 4412