JIM MAfTOX 

ttorney General 

- ,preme Court Bullding 

0. aox 12E48 

ndstln. TX. 79711-2545 

512l47529Ql 

vex BlLvS7C1397 

,IeCOpi~r 512l4750299 

‘*4 Jackson. Sulle 700 

illas, TX. 7!!202.45C6 

_ r4i742gBU 

124 Alberta Ave.. SUltO 160 

.; Paso. TX. 7900527s3 

9151533.S4S4 

ram. we 700 

Hc.~sto”. TX. 770023111 

- mf2233a88 

595 Broadway. Suite 312 

ubbock. TX. 79401.2479 

381747.5239 

‘309 N. Tenth. Suite S 

kAllen. TX. 78501-1085 

,W882-4547 

00 win Pius. suite 490 

ian Antonio. TX. 7S2952797 

51212254191 

The Attorney, General of Texas 

Dectrber 21, 1984 

Ronorable Jim Mapel 

Crlmiual District Axorney 

Brasoria County Cowthouse 

Angleton, Texas 7’7Ii15 

Opinion NO. m-257 

Re: Whether a hospital district 

may acquire by lease or purchase 

real property outside its boundaries 

Dear Mr. Mapel: 

You aak whether the Sweeny Hospital District may acquire, by 

lease or purchase in fee simple. real property located outside its 

boundaries when swb property is deemed necessary for the efficient 

operation of the hospital district. We conclude that the Sweeny 

Hospital District :Lacks the authority to purchase real property 

located outside itr boundaries to fulfill the district’s purpose of 

providing regular aedical and hospital care for its inhabitants. 

Grants of powr to hospital district8 and limitations on the 

exercise of that ;?ower depend upon the constitution and upon each 

hospital distrlct’li enabling statute. Attorney General Opinion M-171 

(1967) ; see Moore YL Edna Rosultal District, 449 S.W.Zd 508 (Tax. Civ. 

APP * - %iii:iSti 1969. writ ref’d n.r.e.). Special purpose 

district8 have on3.y the authority which is clearly granted by the 

legislature. Tri-Xty Fresh Water Supply District No. 2 of Harris 

County V. Hannn? S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tex. 1940); Lower Nueces River 

Water Supply District v. Cartwright. 274 S.W.Zd 199. 207 (Tex. Civ. 

APP . 

- San Anton:;) 1954, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see Moore v. Edna 

HOEPita District, >n. 

- 

The Fifty-eighth Legislature authorized creation of the Sweeny 

Hospital District ..n accordance with article IX 

Texas Constitution.’ Act8 1963, 58th Leg.. ch. &.‘??l yVP,‘C? 

art. 4494q-13). The enabling statute provides. in part, as follow: 

Sec. 2. The hospital district herein authorized to be created, shall provide for the establishment of a hospital system to furnish medical 

and hosl~.tsl care to person8 residing in said 

hospital-district by the purchase, construction, 

acquisit Tona. repair, or renovation of buildings 

and impxcvements; and the equipping of same and 

the adml&tration thereof for hospital purposes. 

Such district shall assume full responsibility for 

p. 1143 
Honorable Jim Mapel - Page 2 (m-257) 

providing medical and hospital care for its needy 

inhabitants. 

. . . . 

Sec. 9. A hospital district organized in 

nursuance of this Act shall have the right and 

power of eminent domain for the purpose of 

acquiring by condem%ion any and all property of 

any kind or charact&. resl, personal or mixed, or 

any interest therei,-, including outright ownership 

of such property in fee simple absolute, within 

the boundaries of tE8 said district, necessary or 

convenient to the clxercise of the rights, power, 

privileges and funcc::lons conferred upon it by this 

Act, in the manner provided by General Law with 

respect to condemnal::.on . . . . (Emphssis added). 

Acts 1963, 58th Leg., ch. 131i at 361. The only express reference to 

acquiring real property limitli the district’s power of condemnation to 

property “within the boundaries of the said district.” Nevertheless, 

the purpose for the restriction also logically applies to non-condemnation acquisitions of properl:y. 

Thus, neither the enabl:lng statute nor the constitutional provision upon which it is based expressly prohibit8 acquisitions of real 

property located outside the district. However, because special 

purpose district8 have only the authority clearly granted by the 

legislature, the determinative? question is whether the legislature has 

clearly granted the Sweeny Hospital District the authority to acquire 

real property outside of ~I:II boundaries, not merely whether the 

legislature has not prohibil:c!d such action. See Attorney General 

Opinion WW-914 (1960). In c:he Sweeny Hospital-strict’s enabling 

statute, the legislature gra~,ted authority to acquire real property 

but did not clearly indicate l:he scope of the power. 

Because the constitution does not require that the boundaries of 

a special purpose political subdivision include all area8 in which the 

subdivision has operations, c:he legislature may authorize operations 

outside a district’8 boundaries. San Jacinto River Conservation and 

Reclamation District V. Sellf:rs, 184 S.W.2d 920. 923-24 (Tex. 1945); 

State ex rel Grimes County IzFpayers Association v. Texas Municipal 

Power Agency, 565 S.W.2d 258-(Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 

1978. no writ); Harris County Water Control and Improvement Dj~strict 

No. 58 v. City of Houston. 357 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 

1962, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Lover NUaCe8 River Water Supply District v. 

Cartwright, supra. However- the cases allowing acquisitions of real 

property outside the houndarles of ‘a special district usually deal 

with a specific legislative Srant of authority to acquire property 

vithin or without the district. See, e.g., San Jacinto River 

?* 1144 
Honorable Jim Mapel - Page 11 (311-257) 

Conservation and Reclamntio~ District v. Sellers, rupra; Lower Nueces 

River Water Supply District~r. Cartwright, B. 

The court in State ex Eel Grimes County Taxpayers Association v. 

Texas Municipal Power Agency. supra , upheld inclusion of a portion of 

Grimes County within the TlUta8 Municipal Power Agsncy’s [hereinafter 

TMPA1 operating area that was not within its boundaries although the 

enabling statute did not expressly authorize acquisitions of property 

outside of the TMPA’s boundaries. See V.T.C.S. srt. 1435a. 14(2). 

However, the court emphasized that rwss undisputed that from the 

inception of planning to establish the TMPA, it was contemplated that 

certain areas outside its boundaries were to be acquired as sources of 

lignite coal to carry out the purpose of the TMPA of producing 

electricity. Further, even when a statute does authorize acquisitions 

outside district boundaries, the acquisitions must further the purpose 

for creation of the district. Harris County Water Control and 

Improvement DiStriCt No. 28 V. City of Houston. supra; Attorney 

General oninion WW-914 (1960). Therefore, determination of the 

legislative intent for c&&n of the Sweeny Hospital District is 

necessary. 

The legislature is not required to set forth in detail all the 

provisions governing the e.uthority of a political subdivision in 

carrying out its legislative purpose, State ex rel Grimes County 

Taxpayers Association v. T~?:tas Municipal Power Agency, supra at 273, 

and the courts vi11 occa&nally add words or phrase8 to a statute 

when necessary to give effect to-legislative intent when the intent is 

clearly disclosed by the ::t!mainder of the statute. Sweeny Hospital 

District v. Carr, 378 S.W.ld 40, 47 (Tex. 1964). Eowever, we conclude 

that the lack of an express grant to the Sweeny Hospital District of 

authority to acquire property outside its boundaries, and the express 

limit on the exercise of its eminent domain power to vithin its 

boundaries indicate that the legislature did not intend the district 

to have the implied power to acquire property located outside of its 

boundaries. 

Further, the fundsmcztal purpose for the hospital di8triCt 

militates against implied authoritation for the acquisition of 

facilities outside the boundaries of the district. The sole purpose 

of the Sweeny Hospital District is to provide medical ar.d hospital 

care to persons residing ,111 the hospital district. Acts 1963. 58th 

Len.. ch. 135. 52. Conce Stably, a medical facility locat.ed outside 

th; district’s boundaries ‘&ny dc~near enough to the district to serve 

its inhabitants efficientl:r.~ Although purchasing an existing facility 

outside the district could be less expensive than purchasing one 

inside the district and less expensive than constructing a new 

facility, the inhabitants of a hospital district will usually best be 

served through medical fa~::Llities located within their district. A 

hospital district’s difficulty in serving its inhabitants within its 

boundaries may indicate a need for a change in district boundaries 

rather than a need for acquisitions of facilities outside its 

p. 1145 
Honorable Jim Mapel - Page 4 UM-257) 

boundarier. The legislature uay provide a solution to this problem by 

authorizing expansion of the boundaries of a hospital district even 

when it is alreadv in creat!.oo and subiect to bonded indebtedness. 

See Stamford Hospital District. v. Vinsoi. 517 S.W.Zd 358 (Tex. Civ. 

App. - Rastland 1974, wit r;f’d n.r.e.1; see also Carter V. Aamlin 

Hospital District. 538 S.W.211 671 (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1976. 

writ ref’d n.r.e. . 

Rowever, we note that ill fulfilling its constitutional duty to 

assume full responsibility for providing medical and hospital care for 

its needy inhabitants. the hospital district has the authority to pay 

for the medical expense of cwndlng a needy inhabitant to a medical 

facility outside the district because of a temporary or emergency lack 

of sufficient medical or hospital facilities. Attorney General 

Opinion M-171 (1967); see also Attorney General Opinion h-870 (1971). 

We conclude only that the S&eny Hospital District may not acquire 

real property located outside the district to fulfill its purpose of 

providing regular medical and hospital care for inhabitants of the 

district. 

The Sweeny Hos+tal District has only the 

authority which :La clearly granted by the 

legislature. The lack of an express grant to the 

district of authority to acquire property outside 

its boundaries, the express limit on the exercise 

of its eminent domain power to within its 

boundaries. and th,e fundamental purpose for the 

hospital district of providing medical and 

hospital care to its inhabitants indicate that the 

legislature did not intend the district to have 

the authority to ac,quire property located outside 

of its boundaries. 

Very truly yo , J iv k 

JIH MATTOX 

Attorney General of TLxas 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICHARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman. Opinion Committee 

p. 1146 
Ronorable Jim &lapel - Page 5 (JM-257) 

Prepared by Jennifer Riggs 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Cllpin, Chairman 

Co1111 Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Jim Moellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

pi 1147