THE RNEY GENERAL 

Honorable Clayton T. Garrison 

Executive Director 

Opinion No. M- 1268 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: Authority of Parks 

and Wildlife Department to expend an 

amount greater than 

the sum specified 

at Item 10B of its 

current Appropriation 

Bill for development 

and expan&ion of park 

facilities, using 

funds appropriated 

to the Department by 

other items of the 

Appropriation Bill. 

Dear Mr. Garrison: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the above 

captioned matter and pose the following question: 

'IIs the Parks and Wildlife Department authorized to expend an amount greater than the sum 

specified at Item 10B of the current Appropriatione 

Bill for development and expansion of park facilities 

at one or all of the parks listed therein, using 

funds appropriated to the Department by other 

iteme of the Appropriation Bill?" 

"Item lOB, page 111-106 of S.B. NO. 11, 

ae amended by S.B. No. 7, Acts of the 62nd 

Legislature, Regular Session, 1971 (Current 

Appropriations Bill) reads as follows: 

B. Development and expansion of Park 

facilities for the convenience of the 

public, including screended and group 

shelters, camp and trailer sites, picnic 

units, roads, water and electrical systems, 

rest rooms, park headquarters, the clearing 

of land, and for other facilities: 

-6221- 
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (M-1268) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Lyndon Bainee Johnson 

State Park 1,000,000 

Balmorhea State Park 166,500 

Longhorn Cavern State Park 79,400 

Goliad State Park 

Mission Tejas State Park 

1g, y; 

> 

Varner-Hogg Plantation 

State Park 95,555 

Stephen F. Austin 

State Park 75,000 

Lake Somerville State 

Park 150,000 

Washington-on-the-Bra205 

State Park 17,000 

u”::: 

Kii: 

U.B. 

U.B. 

U.B. 

U.B. 

U.B." 

The unexpended balances remaining in Item 10B on August 

31, 1972 have been reappropriated for the fiscal year beginning September 1, 1972. (See 111-176-177 of S.B. No. 1, 

Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Call&d Session, 1972). 

In addition to the above specific reappropriation, we 

aleo find the following specific appropriation to the Parke 

and Wildlife Department for the fiscal year ending August 

31, 1973, ae ehown at page 111-111, Senate Bill No. 1, Acts, 

62nd Legislature, 3rd C.S., 1972: 

"21. There ia hereby appropriated from the 

Texas Park Fund, pureuant to Article 4 

of House Bill 730, Acts of the Sixty-second 

Legislature, Regular Session, 1972, for 

all neceseary caste /PI%-$&rgQQ,QQQ-$ep 

aefltl~6~~~el?-~Fpem-~he=H~gkway-Beaa~~meR~ 

eE-laAa-Be~Rde~-~y-6e~g~ee~-Ave~~e-~e~e~a~e 

SfPee~S-lQtk-SfPeef-a~~-~~~h-S~~ee~-~~-~he 

G~~y-e~-A~sf~R+-Teffa~~-~e~-~eve~0~me~~-e~ 

sai~-~aR~-ae-a-Sfate-ga~~e~-~a~k7 and 

for the purpose of planning, ac&isition 

and development of other State parks and 

State historic cites. Such expenditures 

include, but are not limited to, ealaries 

and wages, professional services and feee, 

travel, capital outlay, 4ncluding land 

and improvements thereto, and all other 

necessary costs and expenses whether by 

contract or direct payments. $14,500,000" 

-6222- 
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (M-1268) 

(Brackets ours. Item of appropriation 

shown in brackets was vetoed by the 

Governor.) 

The veto of the $1,500,000 item, however, does not 

affect the remainder of the appropriation contained in 

Item 21. Attorney General's Opinion M-1228(1972). 

Your requeet states in part: 

?tn order to provide the nature and extent 

of facilltiee and improvement& required to meet 

existing public demand, the Department is 

prepared to expend a greater sum than the amount 

specified by the Appropriations Bill at certain 

of ,the parks listed in Item 10B. Any additional 

expenditure above the sum appropriated at Item 

10B would be taken from other appropriations made 

to the Department. (See Item 20 and 22, page 

III-log, S.B.No. 11 as amended by S.B. No. 7, 

Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session, 

1972. ) 

"The Comptroller's Office contends that the 

Department is limited to a specific sum appropriated 

for each park as listed in Item lOB, so that the 

total expenditures for development projects in 

these parks during the current biennium cannot 

exceed the appropriated sum. Your attention 

is directed to Section 26, page V-45, S.B.No. 11 

as amended by S.B.No. 7, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971. This section has 

been carried forward in the new Appropriations 

Bill. (See Section 26, page V-44, S.B. No. 1, 

Acta of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session, 

1972.)" 

After much study and deliberation of the difficult 

complex question presented, we have concluded that we must 

answer it in the affirmative. It is well settled that rules 

of construction applicable to statutes equally are deemed 

to apply to appropriation bills. Attorney General Opinion 

NO. M-1141(1972)1 81. COTOs. 1225-1226, States, Sec. 166. 

-6223- 
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 4 (M-1268) 

Consequently, 

II 

. . . when it is necessary to construe an 

act in order to determine its proper meaning, it 

is settled that the Court should first endeavor 

to ascertain the legislative intent from a general 

view of the whole enactment, and the enactment 

alone. The intent having been ascertained, the 

court will then seek to construe the statute so 

as to give effect to the purpose of the Legislature, as to the whole and each material part 

even though this may involve a departure 

h&m-the strict letter of the law as written by 

the Legislature. This is the fundamental 

canon and the cardinal, primary, and paramount 

rule of construction, which should always be 

closely observed and to which all rules must 

yield. . . .' 53 Tex.Jur.2d 180-185, Statutes, 

Section 125. 

Furthermore, not only must a bill be construed as a 

whole, but all parts of it should be "harmonized" if 

possible according to the legislative intent and the courts 

,t 

. . . will endeavor to reconcile the various 

provisions of the act, insofar as they may appear 

to be conflicting or inconsistent, to the end 

that the enactment and every word, phrase, clause, 

and sentence may have its proper effect.' 53 Tex. 

Jur.2d 229-231, Statutes, Section 160. 

Following the above rules of construction, we must 

note that in current General Appropriations Act the Legislature 

not only reappropriated Item lOB, but also made the additional 

appropriation contained in Item 21 above quoted, and we must 

harmonize the two separate appropriations so as to give legal 

effect to both appropriations. Therefore it is our opinion 

that Item mdoes not constitute an 0,verall limitation on 

the amount of money that may be spent for the projects 

specified therein. Our opinion is that you may spend the 

monies appropriated in Item 21 on any parks selected by 

YOU, which may or may not include one or more or all of 

those parks designated in Item 10B. 

-6224- 
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 5 (M-1268) 

The language in Item 21 appropriating $14,500,000 for 

the development and acquisition "of other State parks and 

State historic sites" evidently means other than the one 

"bounded by Congress Avenue, Colorado Street and 11th 

Stree in the City of Austin," that being the one designated 

and immediately proceeding the language "other state parks." 

The 'Iother" does not refer to those state parks set out in 

Item lOB, which is a separate reappropriation for the fiscal 

year beginning September 1, 1971. 

While the general rule i s that the function of an 

appropriation is to authorize the expenditure of a certain sum 

of money for a certain purpose and for no other purpose and 

thus operates as a limitation on the amount of money that may 

be expended for such purpose (Attorney General Opinion No. 

O-4632(1942), this rule is not without exceptions. One such 

exception is where a contrary legislative intent evidently 

appears, as in this instance wherein the legislature by 

appropriate language has made an additional appropriation 

for the same purpose. Consequently, the first rule of 

construction must yield to the paramount rule of construction, 

legislative intent or purpose. 

See. 125. 

53 Tex.Jur.2d 185, Statutes, 

-SUMMARYItem 10B of the appropriation to the Parks 

and Wildlife Department contained in the General 

Appropriations Act for the fiscal year ending 

August 31, 1972 (p. 111-105-106, 3604-3605) and 

reappropriated by the current General Appropriations 

Act (~.III-176-177) for the development and expansion of certain park facilities, does not 

constitute a limitation on the amount of money 

that may be spent for said purposes and the 

Parks and Wildlife Departmen,t is authorized 

to spend other moneys appropriated for the 

development and expansion of park facilities in 

addition to said item of appropriation. 

-6225- 
Honorable Clayton T. Garrislon, page 6 (M-1268) 

Prepared by Kerns Taylor 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. E. Allen, Acting Chairman 

3. C. Davis 

Jack Goodman 

Jay Floyd 

Max Hamilton 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-6226-