### THEATTORNEY GENERAL

OF TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY GENERAL AURTXN H. TEXAS

ldsrch 11, 1947

Board of Water Engineers OpinionNo. V-82 State of Texes Austin, Texas RG: Appropriated Water - change of purpose snd PlSCG of use and ths watershedquesQGntl~a~~i,:, tion.

The‘questions

refeed are stated in your letter of February 26, 1947, as f01lorGn

"In 

### 1936,

the Boerd grented a permit to ths &SzoS IrrigationCompany to change the UIG or G part or all of the i7ateraepproprlated under PeraLt No. 1040 to wnufacturing or cenwcial USG. The question lrlaea - roplld t&G American Canal C~ompany bc aUthoPizGdunder this 1936 permit to take and divGPt water for ~niclpal a,nd

fndustriaJuSe outside of the boundaries of the o~igiaalPermitNo. 1040 without obtaininga permit from the Board; an@, itiPthGP,

would thGp be permitted to carPy thb WSter So approprfatGdOUtzidG the dmlnage aPea of the Braeos River."

We heve been furnishedulth the permit and a-z&dnota tbeleto UndGP whi@h e&&e Amerfoan Cenal Cotspany(Suce& to B~zoa Valley IrrfgationCo~peny) is ROW uring 8-b vOt4P f3'OW thG bP4ZOG WiVOP, In 30 far as they 0411-
aem thir 4pfaion,the rmr mm&d, 8-p to be these: p aa PGflGctGdby &&G pbslpit,'#p

By ?anit lo. lOb3 3 drOul Septemb#r P7, l!m, the

‘s 8x4

of Wmter EngfakerrgrantGd to ,t@e Br4zoa ,elley IrpigatfonCompaq tht right to appro~iate 99,932 WP4-rG4t or water p4r ~ldl r2~41

t&44 fkWpPPOpFg8t4d, VG~WP~ Or thG bW@ om RlVGPj

lt 0 2WtG of div4prl.m t3ot to OX- .OOGd

685 cubfo fGGt PGP SSCOnd Of tin, @P a4 maah thepsof 88 U48y bb naoesseryWhGB3

294nGPg4~f41- 1~ used fm the frrigetfonof 49,966 acrea ef land, loaabd Fn Fort Bend County, The pem9itBoard of Water Engineers - Page 2, V-82

ves issued subject to certeln egreements made between the IrrlgatlonCompany and third persons;which agreementsare not meterlal to this opinion.

On June 16, 1336, thG Board used~ .the following language in amending the origins1p4rmit: "Now, thepefore,the &34Pd of water EwinGera for thG gt8tG
or TGWS, does by these prGsGUt8 @'ant this GmGUdm5rit to PGnlt llo. 1040 hewtofoP i88UGd to the lb4koG V4114y Irri@tioa Oway, and hG~OGrWth the Bnzos Vnllrf IxM.gatlonCompsnjmay GppropFiat and WG the water, OP any portioa of auah umtG*, allocatedby said

On Oaaeisbebel

18, 1941, ?ePmlt 1040 was sg~in amended. This amendmentreferred to thG BOBrd'a 4Otioa in $PGnting the origitvl pG=it snd to its action In gPsnting the l smwhaent

at Saw 16, 1936 "to pemalt G4ld eapmly te rrr?

a #e&him ar 811 of the waterm rysp*oprlrted the+WtideP r0r mrnufacturi~.and eomiaWcla19u~poaea"and then authorlasd%iW Bncoa VaZleJr

Irrigation

Company "to Ch8* the p$aai~

of use 0r G portion or all 0r thG water pelttre3 to be 49propriatedunder arid PO it MO. z@ko r0z,r -0 purpoaa 0f irrig4ttw 44351 84mo of It*i%d I@oRt& QU$8idG the ltRiGPShR$?'

$& ~O(RIF$I, @4lVG8tOti, Jt8PPi8 #arf I*% mid ~cwatt~tt, lti0isg 5;115 lCPGI 0r lrnd dea@rib#dtr the ark tar1 pmwlt vithln the mamaa Bfrer wa04*llh J still to bG iPrigated out of the o~iglnall pproprlrtion.

,~dmmit 0. lo 0, iha4 GrrGat 0r whiah warn OnSq 28 f942 the Board agein amend-

.$G permit th* iip$ attoa cowany to irri ii 

## to GotaId &he wrtwa Gd 3,328 0r thG .‘5,11 8GFG8 'remainingla thG watarahsd under the 9FioP 4tGGndm4nt,

and lorvfag 1,787 8Cr~a of the originalpenit still within the Bnzoa River wet&rGhedL This amea4axtnt is aimlls~ in fo@E.

Board of Wster Engineers - Page 3, V-82

to the amendment of October 18, 1941.

The question of the Boclrd's jurisdiction

4rml power to reguleteand control change of use sad plsco *i

use of water which has been appropriatedsad put to bmaoficlsl us4 under permits issuedby ths Board, h4d not bwen consideredby the courts of thta Sixto until the owe of Clark v. Briecoe IrrigetioaComprray, decldod F4brwm 19, 1947, by the Austin Court of Civil AFperls in Opinion Ho. 9588, aad not yet rep4rteds

The f4cts of the Clark case sre these, The permit held by Brlscoe IrrigationCompsny authorlzsdapproprietioa of 75,000 acre-fe&per annum for irrigation, mining and mllnicipa

1 US4 e Of this amount, 50,000 acre-feet~4s 4lloceted for the purpose of irrigation,the remaining25,000 4cre feet being ellocated for mining and municipalpurposes.The 25,000 acre-feetpermittedfor mining end mualc~pa1 use was not involved slaae it was never beaeficlallyused 48 required to coeplete the appropriationtheroof. The 50,000 acre-feetallocated for irrigation was btneficiallyused for the length of time requiredby Article 7592,V.R.C.S., 40
as to vest the title ppovfded for in thst article. Upon the Board’s denial of an applicationto amend the permit to substituteother speaffied lends f,or those desigaated la t& permit, and to change the purpose of use 80 aa to iaClUa4 m+nFag, manufacturing and wafeipal, the irrigationoompsay sought a declaratory judgmentto the effect that it had the inherentright, growing out of the right vested by reason of Article 7592, to change the purpose of us4 of the water from irrlgertion to other lawful uses, such right beiag f’pee

of any regulationor control by the Board ao long
aa the use wal 8 beneffcfelone authorizedby law and did not result fn an Increasedeppr4prirtionor t4kFng 4f 4 greater quentitg of water then was authorizedby the p4klt,
or Impair the vested rights of other appropriators.

After reviewingthe aoaservatien amendment to th4 Coartltution (Artlole XVI, Sea. 59-a) and the st8tUt4sd441- iw vlth the aubjwt, the Court expressed 3.ts oplal4n ta the f4'bl4wiag

langwgrs
YQeae statutoryprovisionscl44rly Invest the BwrU vith the power and duty to determinewhether the wol for whloh th4 II)- plicatioa $8 srde moat the strtutory 4hjeativ4s, includingthat of befag in the public interest. Nsceasarflythe determinetloaof that lsruo iwoLves the exePci44 of 61Sewad .Boerd of Water Eagiaeers - Page 4, V,82

i

.a and reasonablediscretion. Nor is it aoatended thet the Board bea,not such discreMz in peasing upon 4a origia41epplloae
"Bvery cawidentlon for vesting such origiaeldiscretion in the Borrd applies with squel foiwe for it4 exercise in 0184 of change of purpose OF pl800 of use, We therefore think there is impliait in these provisions of our laws, coastltutioasl and statutory, a veatiaC;

in the Board of the continuing duty of suparviaionover the distribution and
use of the publio watera of the State ao as to
sea that the oonntitutioael and etstutory objectlveasre ottrined,and CamyLng with it the requirementthrt aay aubeteatial oh4nge In
uae or plroe Qr use a& ruthorlzed in the origiual permlt,,aust Moe the approval of the Board. Any other construction might easily result in defeat or'

airaumveatiea

of the objootivesof the conservationlaws.

n

. . .
“If4 hold that authority of the Boerd is essentialto authorizea ohaage in us4 or place of use from thet authorized in the permit."

B&used

on Clerk Y. Briscoe IrrigationCompeay, sup14, it la our opinion that the AmericanCeael Cwpsay msy not use the water appropriated by it under Its present permit for muaioipslpurposeswithout the uauel application

~,. to the Board..

.

.

,, We are uaebls to se4 a,dlatFaction as regards the c'henge f'rox e manuracturing

end oommeroielua4 as stated in the psrmit to the Fndustrial~44 referred te in your letter. It is provided in Artloli 7’170, V,A.C.3,, tliet "the ,epproprietlon.

of vater aust be for irrigation, mining,mllllag, manufacturing,

the developmsntof power, the construction and operationof waterworksfor cities sad towns, or for Stock Mlsing." And, in fixingpriorltisabetween usea, Article 7471, V.A.C.S.,after grsntiagHo. 1 priority to domestic.

and pluaiclpol

use, gives No, 2 priority to msnufacturiag,

whioh is describedas, "weter to be used in processesdesignstedto oonvartmateriels of e lower order of value into rorp heviag greater usabilityand commer4ialBoer3 of Ueter Engineers - Page 5, V-82

value end to includew8ter necessary for the d6velopatent of electricpower by means ethsr than hgdroelectrio.” No prwision fa made in the statutes rel4tLve to industrialuse es such. For the pwpoee of this opinion lndustrie2, menufaeturhg anb commevsypal will be considered8s synonymous4nd me8n the seme thing

as the msnufacturing use referred to Zn the st4tute.8.

The situationas regards the wnufscturlng
use under conslderutian here Is distlngulsh4ble from that lnvolved In the Clerk case in tw reap6ots: (1) Here, the originalplrrmit haa alrewlg been em6nd6d by the BM?rd t0 @&low 8 #8nuf8Cturinguse of 811 0r sny porticln

of the wster allocated to the originalpezwrllllt. In the Clark ers6, this erendment te the permit u&a sought snd dented. (9) Although a4t m4terMl to t& decishm, the frets there shaw thet 4 44rMln grew+ tion of ths total slloa8tian~8s set @ride to mitirq and mwieipl while the xwmalnder~8s elloartedt* irrigao16m. Hors the total 4llaiostion is for lcrigstiem, Wnuf8crturtn.g aad oawoPcrcia1.

tbfarence l.s

nov made to our OpinionNo. O3397, addreesed to the Board of Water &&gineers. Among other problewv, th0 oploion was ooncemed vlth (1) the right of perwbttee to I%%% ,'te land other tbrrn that d6wribed in bF4 pw?Itit, and 8) the authority 0r T th8 Board to gr4nt 8n em6ndment t0 such permit to ellow irrigation of such other land. me opinion conclude.8 that peraittee'ei,rrigetion use Ls restriatedto the Land desor.U#ed

in swh permit and thet a ch46ge of piece of ua6 Is net parurritted withgrat

the suthorlty of the Beard (1W6 quote fr0m the opinionas PolloWs:

"However B aereful resdlng of the Texas Statutes dda&g with app%?opriatioa of w4ter reveals 8 unifws Znsistenae by the Legbslsi ture that if the o&~rop:riartsd Wat6r is to be umd for I~rlgiItttcn pur~omcm, the land to be lrrigstedmust be described in the oorioura inrtmentm required to perfect the spprogrtition. Ua,tind thtr requlr6mentin the stotuto oovrring the aentents of the 4pplloation,t&It covering the contents of the not104 of hesring

on the permft, and in the statute de8ling,with the contents of the permit itself. The Legislature has set out no such requirementa wh4re the voter I.4

to be used for other purposes..

Board of Water Engineers - Pege 6, v-82

"If it vas the leglslstiveintentthat

an sppropristorof water for lrrlgatlonpurposes shouldbe free to us6 suoh Water to lrrlgatesny lend he chose, ve o8n conceive of no reason for requiringth8t the land be described in each of these'enactments. If It vas intendedthat the appropriatorcould **ignore** the fsct th8t a particulartr8ct of land ~88 described in his permit, it must be es@UPfed

th8t the Legisletureh8s requireda uaelesa thing e o? statute Under well recognizedrules

q construction

we can m8ke no auch assumption.

At first glance, the result to be reached here, based on Opinion Bo, O-3397,would be that since the Leglslaturoh8s uot reguired 8 desoriptionof place of use of the non-irrigating statutoryuses in the original application 8nd permit, chenges in the place of such use without further eppliccrtlon to the Board must follow as a matter d Cour8e. Nor st first glance, does Clark v. Briscoe Irrlga-' tion Company, suprs, seem to go so~far as to require the Boerd's permissionto chengevhen the use is already suthcized by permit. lfOVeV4r, no logical re8son exists for dlatinguishingchange of piece of use 8s such, from ohange of place of use 8s betveep the various uses authorizedby statute. We interpretiC1ark.v. Brlscoe IrrigationComp8ny 8s holding that eppllcationto the Boerd is required to ch8nge the place of use a8 such and for all permitt8d purposesand not for irrigationalone. A0 good rea.sonexists why pelllrittee should be confined to one area in conducting irrigation, absent suthorizetionto changeby the Board, and at the same time be alloved to exercisethe other uses coveredby his permit at any place or places he desires. Here the wster to be used in either case is th6 s5me Vat4P. Cen it logicallybe restrictedin change for irrigation,

but not manufacturing? We think not. Clark v. hy2aaea frrlgationCompany has lnferentiellymoved the law ef appropriationin this State over the void lait by our statutes in nmt prevldi T for 

### l ppllo~atloa

for change OS ua4 em3 pla00 or uaa, and he "continuing duty of 8uparvIaienover ths diatrlbutlon and use of the public uatopa oh the Itata 10 86 to see that the constitutions1 and at8tuterg objectivesar6 attained,"accorded the Boald 'bythe opinion surelymust relate to chsnge of place of
use for all purposesand not for irrigation alone. We kn6v of no other result vhioh would not in the word8 of. . -

Board of Water Engineers - Page 7, V-82

th8 opinion “result in defeat or clruumyentlon OS th8 objectivesof the conservationlaw”, 88 th8t law has be8a construedand carried forwardby that case. We conaidep Clark v. Briacoe Irrlgrtlon,Caop8nj a8 contFolll.ng

on this aubjeot

.

We think it unS@tunate that the Board has not,, and In our opl~ion it r*, under its rsgulatorypower8, Art. 7531,V.A.C.S., rd under th8 last atatem8Ilt of Article 7515,V.A.C.I., pequ3.m dealgmticm of the plaoo of the use of non-i~~ig8tL~ m8es. Article 7515, Y .A 4.8.; provide8aa follewrr

“Bverypemit lasud by the Board, uudesr the provisionsof thla cbrpter, shall bo in wrltl@g, 8tteatul by the 0081 of arid Word and shall contain aubstarltiatly the followlngrThe
name of the applioant ta wham Issued; the d8te of the isauancathereof; the date of the flling of the originaleppllcotionthersior In the offloe of th8 B@ard; the use or pur which the appropriationof water la to {0110 for

e ude; the amount or voluma of water authorla8dto be appropriated;

a general description8f ths
source of supply Srom whiah the appro]Pri8tiQn is proposed to be mrde; and, ii such 8ppropriOtion IS for irrigation, a daacrlptionSnd atateslant of the approxirto are0 OS the 18nd8 to be.

In this cannaction, we ratommend lor your future ude 8 form of permit which allocat88a 8p0ciric quantity of watsr to each permitted use in order that permittee~87 show by ectual b8neficFaluser th8ylf tka w8t8r to which k8 is entitled undst!

his p8lwit ha8 ripsand into the tilt18 vested by reason of Artiolo 75!XZ2. It seems to ua tlvlt this type OS pezrlalt designatingthe place of use -ofall permitted u8eai would aaalat geu in Carryingout the ngulrtory gbligrtion whfoh you hoe mbder the 8tstutes and und8r the construotiongiven them by clrrk v. Bidscoe Irrlga~tion

Ccmpaay, supra.
Th8 qlaeatZcm

nw rriara 88 to pemittee’r rZ&t to use the water under its p8nLt id ynuf88t~lag purt;te;oiLyondthe w8teuh8d without tuur2h8r 

### l mthoritf irou

. Ih8 l

~OQdHPt8

0s @QtQhr 18, l$?h, 8?kd my 28,.

Board of Water Engineers - Page 8, v-82

. .. .(~ 1942, olearly carry the irrigationuse on all except

1.787 acrea beyond the watershed. Tha languagewhich is easentiellgthe same in each of the 8eendments granting this authority, is quoted as Sollows:

"l?OW,TliBRBFORE,

the Board of Water Engineers for the 8t8te of Texas, does by t&888 INSent QltMT the Authority and the Right, subjeat te 811 the teru8, rgpeementa,conditlonaand reatriotlona contained fn Permit Ho, 1040, unto the Brazes VIlley IrrigationUoinpany to change its Plaoe of Use of the water, for irrigation under said Pepplit so. 1040 from the lands origfnelly

described fn srld permit the irrig8tlonof the follcOlLng deaaribed lands, towltr to

“ft iS expresslyprovided th8t 811 OS the rights, tezms, agreements,conditions and restpictfons

contained in Permft No. 1040 shall remain fn full force and effect and the Authority 8nd right to change the Plaae OS 086 herefn granted i8 granted subject to all auah rights, terms, agreements, condition and restrfbtfons. *.

“It is further exp~sss~yprovided that the granting OS this Right and Authorityshall not in any way fnarease,nap decrease, the Permittee’sexfstfngPfghts under said Pemit Hoa 1040, except that PermItteeniay exercise 4ta IrrigationFights OR the lands hereinbeiore described (88 Trest A and Tr8ct B), and shall not irrigate otBeqP l8nds than thoae hereinafter deacrfbedunleaa 18wSullypermitted to dc 10.”

Thl6 lrnguage is preceded by sealtationsconcornin the peetfoueaction of the Beard fn granting the origin81per&?, and in gnating the l sedment authorizing
we SOP wnniaoturfng purpoasa, the applloat~onby the lPrtfgtien carpmy to frrif)teb8yoad the wrtorahed, the helrfng on snah 8ppliarth~i rnd th8 fLDdf0g that **a** chrnge in place of u8e would not **Polltilt** in on fna%wse% r$pmPirtlon OF fnterfere

with vested rights,

.,. .

Boerd or Weiyr 1Cn(ptwaw - Peg8 9, Vn82

We heve exerined the two wlt8Mhed rppliertlolu in question end neither mekes apfU,c~tloa to ~?ewwe the mrnuf8oturing we beyoti the v8teP8h8d.

our 8t8tut88 on thL8 rubjeat rtrsss th8t the weter itself 18 t&8 818ment upon vhZoh the wrterrhed restriction18 pl8ced. &Hi018 7589, V.A,O.S., makes it unlawful to dfvept vetrr beytmd tlw vrterehedend Article 7590, V.A,O.S,, pXovide8 8 method by !fhiCh w8ter uy be diverted upeu p~op8r appllcrtion8nd h88rigg. The statutce provide 8s fol.lcvs:

Brtlale 7589-

'It Sh8li be UWWiUi iQP WY pW#oll, 88- soci,etiQQ

of p@JrIow, oor)slat;cln, vet(rpirproveoent or ixQQ8tloa district te take osI divert say of the vetep of th8 oniiarry flow, underflow,or storm flev of eny stCe8m,v8ter course, or vstershbd, in thi8 9tste Into any othw n8twl 8tMm, v8teP oouree 01 w8tesrh8d, ts t&8 prejksdloe

of 8ay pw*sn or,

propwty ritueted withtn ths wstexwwd fwa Mioh auoh vlter 18 propw~ed to be t8k8n 6~ BLverted."

"Beforeeny person, es4ociatioaof per80118, oorpor8tIoa,

weter improvementor l~lgation district ShOll t8k8 8ny v8te2' iroll ear Mtur81 StreDm, V8ter CQUZ’80, or vrtwahsd in tht8 i3t8te Into 8a) other w8terrhed, arUCh perI)on,

l O8wi8- tion of per8on8, ao~e*ltlon, v8teF iuprovement

. or irrlgrtlon

dirtrlct ah811 erke rppliortioato the Bo8H oh W8ter Xnglneer8 for 8 perrft 80 88 to take OP dtvert swh vdlt8F8, and no such pmmit shell be ir8uadby the Barrd nntll 8fter full, hearing before arid Beard 88 to the ri@ts to be rffectivd

thereby,end owh herring ah811 bs hsld~ end noti. thereof giVen 8t 8UOh ti@O 8ad 8uOk pl.ece, in 8Uch aode and m8nner 8s the &Mld UJ prescribe;end from l ny decision of the Bo8ld eny appeal my be **t8keQ** to the distriot court of the county in which such diversion is proposed to be made, in the mode 8nd m8nneP prescribed in this chapter for other 'appea18 from the de- .- cision of the Board."Bo8rd of Water Engineers - Page 10, v-82

Although the Boardas intentionas expressedin the two watershedamendments is not entirelyclear, we interpret these amendmentsas necessarilycarrying the water beyond the watershed for all permittedpurposes and not for irrigationalone, We think that all uses authorizedby a permit move with the water beyond the watershedand see no logic In requiringpermittee to do that which he has done already,namely, reapply and be re-permittedto move exactly the same water beyond the watershed. By this, we do not me8n th8t under a permit allocatingspecificquantities of water to specific usea, that a permit to remove water 8lloc8ted to one of the permitteduses will move the weter 8llocDtOd to 8 permitted use not involved in the rerovrl application, That is not the situation involved here. XW d0 we ne8n t0 itier th8t this in any wry linit8 what ha8 been heretoforesaid a8 to chenge of u8e and pl8ce of use. Articles 7589 and 7590 (supzu)rel8te only to removingwrter beyond the watershedand oreste no restriation on u8e OF place of u8e. These reatrietion888 previdedby st8tute,and es carried forwardby Clark v. Brircoe Irrfgtfon Coaspsny (supra),apply, in our opinion, generelly#rnd are not confined to use within the wetershed. What we have said previouslyon this subject of change applies as well beyond the watershed.

411 conclusionsreachedherein relating to chrnge OS use and place of use are subject to the general rule prohibitingsuch changeswhen the amount of appropriated wster fs increased,or when prior vested rights are lnjured. These ostters are for your cot~ideratlon at the he8ring on the applicationfor change.

SUMMARY

Under a permit grantedby the Board of Water Engineersauthorfzfngthe appropriation of water for irrigation purposes,and amendments thereto euthorfsfngthe use of a portion or all of the water so appropriatedfor manufacturing

and commercialpurpo8es, and permittingthe removal of the bulk of the water beyond the watershed for use in lrrfgatfng certain described lands;permitteemust apply to the Board for a permit to use the apprfetedwaters for municipalpurposesand for
a permit to change the place of use for manu-. . . .

Board Of tiater Engi~~f~r~

- PIge 11, v-82

fscturingg

and coaamemialpufpo8ea,both whit&- in and without the vatershed~

Your8 very truly

AT!P~RNEYOERERALOF !FXAB -

HDP/bt/Ih

APPROVED:March 11, 1947