i

..

JIMMAlTOX lttorneyGeneral

-upmeme cowl BulldIng 0.80x 12sB Al”. lx. n711. zE4B 512l47525Dl -elex B1074.1367 

### l IocOpl*r512l475-0255

‘14J6ckmm.Suit.700 Iah*. TX.75202-4505 .14i74269*4

624AlBwl~Ave.,stdt*15D ilPus. TX.29905-1793 01-

lull 1oxar.Suit*700 nouatotl.lx. 77w24111

‘lY22WBW

m 8roAdw*y.Suit.312 .ubtwcL TX.7B4Q1-3419 lW747.5238

IXS N.Tenth.Suit.8 kN6n, TX 7B!m.lBd5 5t2mB24.47

looYdll Pm., Suit.460 

### sonAlltolllo.

### TX.ma32797 512R2s4101

AnEqualOpcmtunltW Attlmutm ActIonEFPlOve

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

November 5. I984

NonorAble Lloyd **Doggsrt** ChAirmEn Subcodttee on ConAm6r AffAirr Texnr, Store Senate P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station 

### Auatinr Ta.6 78711 Opinion No. JX-226

Be: Whether Article 1175. 6ection 19, V.T.C.S., authorize6 A home rule city to adopt And enforce regulatloa6 which Arc .pplicAble outnide city limit6 andvhich provide 6tandarde for the 

### Eafe 6torAge of hArardou6 vater6hedA the how materf.16 over the in end Eurrouuding rule 

### city

Dear SeUetor **Doggatt:**

You o6kvhether **rection** 19of Article 1175. V.T.C.S.,

- _ . _. __ .Authorize6

_ A hom6 Nle city 

### tD **aaopt** regUlAtlOne, **AppllCAbl6 OUtEiOC**  **Of City**  **IbitE, vhich**  **6et** ,mtAndArd6 for the **6ofc** 6torAge of harardou6 **Psterial6 in**  the vatc~rrhedo in And 6urrounding the homerule city. We conclude (1) that ILhome ~16 city may define a6 a nuleance the 6tOrege of hat.rdow EubntAncer ne.r **it6 Voter**  Aupply vhen it h.6 A vell-founded Appreh~ur6lon of **dongcr** from ruch Ator6ge within it6 municipal **limit6** And

### vithin five thou6and **feet** of it. boundaries, And (2) thAt A home 

### ni1.e city, ny promulgate 6tandArd6 for the safe 6tOrAge 

### of **tierdow mEtErid**  **to prevent**  rater-6upply pollution in the vater6hedr within the home Nle city’6 extrAterritoriAl juri6- diction.

Article 1175 Q@AEi6e6 th.t hom6 Nle Citi66 ah.11 hAV6 “full pover 

### of loul ate If-government" And enumerate6. “for greater certainty ,” p8rtiCUhr pU”Er6 pO66e66ed by hOmeNle Cities. Section 19of article 1175pr~wide6 a6

### follow:

Each ci.ty 6h.11 have the pover to define all uuieAnce6 end prohibit the 6ame within the **city** and outaid; the city lioit6 for Adistance of five thousand f;et; to have paver to police All park6
or ground6;TAkecl And **the** laud contiguous thereto And u6ed 1:.

### connection therevith, 6peedvaps. or boulevArd6 Novnedby 6Aid city And lying outride of **said city;**  **to prohibit**  the pollution of 6x1~ 6tre.m. 

### dmin or tributnrle6 thereof, vhich msy conetitutezthe lour caof VAter 6upply of Any

### citeHonoroble **Lloyd Doggett**  **- Purge** **2** (JM-226)

And to proVid6 for policing the 6omc06**Veil** a6 to provide for tha p;otcction of Anyvater rhedr And the policing of iom6; to inspect doirie6, 61.6u**ghter** pens And **6iiGtcr** hou666 inride or outnide the limit6 of the Icity, from which meat or milk is furni6hed to the inhabitAnt of the city. (Emph~clir added).

Two clou6es *re rclevcmt to your quertion: the paver to define nui6onc66 and the povcr to prohibit voter 6upply pollution. Your request center6 on interpret:lng the nature 

### of there pover6. onvhether any other provleion6 h&c preempted the povere, And on vhether the omi66ion of “inride or outel~ic the limit6 of **the** city” from the abovequoted Andunderecored clms~s vhich d6.16 vith pollution prevention in Any**v&y**limits such control tovithin 

### Ahomerule city’6 boundarie6.

Article XI, eection 5 Of **the** T6X.6 **COnEtitUtiOn** granted brood pover6 of self-government to citleo qualifying **for** “home rule.” Within their boundarler, hcmerule cities derive their paver from the constitution rather th6n f:rom legi6lation. See Lover Colorado River Authority v. City of Sanfiwco6. **523** S.W.Zd 6T. 643 (Tex. 1975). **Ao** 

### aresult, the **scope** of thei;Ecr vithin their boundari66 depends not upon legialotive grontr of paver but upon expre66 

### or clearly implied limitation6 in the constitution. in the general 1.~6. and In individu61 city charters. Lover Colorado R&r Authority-v. City of Son Muc0l). s. The prGG$i:ion in favor of home rule clti66’~ pover6 vithin their boundarle6 0160 affect6 interpretorion of their extrotarritorial pover6.

**A** home Nl6 city mulIt have expre66 or neC666Arily implied **6tAtUtOry Authority**  t0 UerCiEe paver outaide it6 bound.srle6. City of Auetin **v.** Jnmail. **662 S.V.21~**  **779, 782**  

### (Tex. **App.** - AuEtin 1983. writ VeceTrudgillv., 275 S.W.Zd 658. 662-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1954)n **motion** for reheering); Royel Crest, Inc. v. City of **San** Antonio, 520 S.W.Zd 058. 

### 86,b-65 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

### SonAntonio 1975, vrit ref’d n.r.e.). ChC6 such power exist6, hovever. any limits on it6 cxerciee mu6t appear v:.th “unni6t8~ble clarity." City of Corpus Chri6ti v. Continental Du6Sgrteme. Inc., **445 S.V.2d**  **12, 17** 

### (Tex. **Civ. APP** 

**.** - AuEtin 1969, vrit ;efTo.r.c.) (Tut. 1970); 6ee. l

. per curium. **453** S.V.Zd 470
Inc., .* (G.5’ o;ivy;E 1’~y!&yg’&y&-~;

**406** S.W. d 23 n.r.e.1; Cameron v. City of WACO. 8 F.W.2d 249 (Ter. Civ. App. - WACO **1928, no** **vrit). --** 

Section 19

### of ortic 1175 doe6 not by It6 term6 limit voter pollution prevention to vit’hin A home Nit City’6 boundaries merely because of the omission of the **words** “inside or outside **the limits**  of the 

### city.” **StAtutt6** mmt **be** COuEtNed 06 **A**whole and one **PrOViSiOn** vi11 not be given a meaningsout of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions even if **the** prwi6loa might be **EUECtptiblt to**  **such con**  6tNCtiOn if 6tanding oloue. City of **We6t** Lake Hills v. Westwood Legal Defense Fund, 598 S.U.Zd 681 (Tex. Civ. **App. -**  WACO**1980. no** Noaoroble Lloyd Doggett - PAge 3 (Jn-226)

vrit) ; lee Merchant6 F&EtMo.:or Line6, Inc. v. kailroAd CodEriOn **of**
**m, 73**  S.W.Zd 502 (T& 1978). **With** regard to the other enumerated pouera, 6ection I,9 expr666lY provide6 for their **eXerCiAe** outride the city fimitr. TItu6, the over611 import **Of** 6rtiCle 1175, 66CtiOn **19. itI**  t0 prov:lde 

### for 

### the l xer ci6e

**of** p6rticulAr extrat6rritoriAl pover6.

Article 1176 further cl6rifi66 the **effect** of Article 1173 by providing 

### that

[tJhe enumeration of power6 hereilubova m6derhall
never be ConEtrued to pr6ClUdA. by implication 

### or otherwi6e. Any 6lN:h **City** 

### frW **6XEtCiEing** the power6 incident to the **anjoymant** 

### of loco1 **Eelf** government, provided that ouch povcrr ah.11 not be inhibit6d by 

### the Stats Con6titution.
Thur, the **OmiAaion** of “inrid,E **or** out6ide the limit6 Of **the** City” **from** 

### thevater pollution-prevvcntion clau6e of rection 19doe6 not limit the 

### l XerCl6e **Of** 6uchpover **to** vithin AhomeNl6 City’6 boundorier.

To the ContrArY, 

### thev6t6r pollution prevention power6 Are not neC666Arily limitcd t0 **five** thourond feet. The court in Treodgill v. m, **275** S.W.Zd 

### l t 661, iodicoted in dicta that the omia6ion of the in6lde or outaide **1anguAge** w.6 intcndad t0 AuthOri **VAter** 6Upp17 pollution prevention "vithout llmit 06 to .diEtAnce from 

### the **city liEtit6."**  **Section** 19 **rcfer,a** to both nuirance-defining And water pollution prcvention; thu6, **giV66** th.t **polhtion** Of A public Voter 

## durae la Apublic nulMnce, Gold6mith 6Pwell v. **State. 159**  S.W.Zd 534 (Tc Civ. **ADO.** - D.11.1, 1942. writ ref’d), and o66umin8 that the cl&e ir not 6uperfluou6. IOM AdditIonAl pouer VAE intendid. f+-rY **legi6lotivc** provieion vi11 **te given**  effect, if **pO66ible.** T Life Insurance Company**of** Amc_ricov. Work. 77S.U.Zd 1036 (Tex. 1934

. Neverthele66, the votcrshedr of 6omeVAterCourAe6 con 

### l xt6nd for hundred6 of mile6, And how Nle Citi66’ general **pOliC6 pOWEra.**  **t0** promote and protect the **gctrr!rd** hulth. **Eofety,** And velfore of the people, have not been cxtecided beyond their utrotrrritori.1 **jurie** diction AAe6tAbliEhed by 

### l **:tiuu** 3of Article 9700, V.T.C.S. **Thu6.** vhen taken togethcr. Article6 1175And 97th authorize A **horn6** rule city to dcfina nuiaonces And to prevent vAt6r 6upply pollution vithin it6 bOUndOr Andvithin five thourond 

### fact of 

## ita boundarier. And, Addit10uA11y. 

### to prevent p01.1.uti0n of ita **voter** 6UPPlY in it6 extrotarritorial juri6dicticn vherc ouch jurirdiction i6 greAter than **fiV6** thourond **feet.**
QueEtions remain about: the nature of eactioa 19 povera: (1) whether they 

### l ncompaaa regulating the 6ofe storage **df** hatArdou6 materialo, And (2) whether Any other con6titutional **ot Etotutory**  provi6ionA. vith **“UC”d6tAti3~l6** ClArity." limit the nuisance-defining and voter pollution prevent:.on clAuae6 of rection 19. Preliminary to deciding the latter questioa, vhether either pov6r has been superseded

p. 1013Honorable Lloyd 

### DoSSett- P,aSe4 (JM-226)

**or preempted,**  l basic **undcntendiag** of 

### the povera la necessary. Becauoe pollutiou of a pu,:Lic vatercourse is a nuisance. Goldsmith 6 Povell 

### v. State. m, **the!**povera overlap considerably. Both pavers **encompaaa** regulating the safe atorage of hazardous uateriala in the 

### vateraheda surrounding **A home** **rule** city.

Absent CxDress Authority. Acity cannot declare that Asubject of



### _- regulation in 

### anuisance 

### VlhAU it is not a0 per se or at come& law. Croasuan v. City of Galveston, 

### 247 S.U. 810, 812 (Tex. 1923). Article 1175. section 19. 

# l xurea.?F authorizes houe rule cities to define nuisincea vithin -their boundaries and vithln five thousand feet of their boundaries. Treadgill v. State, 275S.W.2d At 661; Stoughton **V.** City of **Port Worth.**  **277** S,W.2d 150 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1955.
novrit); see also Vlanello v. State, 

### 627S.W.2d 530 (Tex. App. - 

### Fort Worth 1982, **oo pet~~ker,**  even with express authority, **A** city cannot ACt arbitrarily **AII~,**cannot declare that 

### a particular **uae** of property is Anuisance vhlch ia not so in **fact.** Crossuan V. City 

### of **GAhAStOU,** D. If A f.se is a **heard to**  the health, 

### safety, snd velfare of the public. it can constitute **A**nuisAnce in fAct. Dart V. Cit of Dallas, 

### 565s.W.211373, 379 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1978. no .Mheless, **A** psrticular violation of a city’s nuisance ordinance vhich is not a ~n~iaance per ae or at c-n lav would be A question for Acourt of ctmpetent jurisdiction. See Crosanan v. City 

### of Galveston, Ewt v. City of D811~7 Bill V. Villarreal, 3

### 83=Y S.W. **d** a5 (Tax. Civ. App. - SAG

### An%%?1964, vrit ref’d n.r.e.); **Air** Curta@ Destructor Corp. v.-City 

### of Austin, No. 12-83-0108-CV (Tex. App. - Tyler Aug. 23, 

### 1984).

As indicated. AhCpCrule city **my.declere** Apublic nuisance that vhich IA 

### ahasard to the health, safety, and velfare of the public. Vianello v. State, B; 8art v. City of Ds~~As. rupra; Hill v. Villarreal. B. Anobject of regulation need not affect **AII**entire city **in** order to coaatitut:e a nuiearice. Stoughtoo v. City of Fort 

### E, 277 S.U.2d **At** 153. **A** necessary and uaeful business is not 

### itadf. anuisance vhen operated III’A 

### msnaer not harmful to the public health and general velfax,e. Benson v. DeUiAOn. 

### 546 S.U.Zd 898. 901 CT-. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1977, no vritr; City of Carthage v. Alluua, 398 S.W.Zd 799. **804** (Tax. Civ. App. - Tyler 1966. no vrit); 

### hovLITcr. Acity mayproAcribe harmful operations. See City of a0u8t0n
v. Johnny Frank’s **Auto** Pwts Co., 

### 480 S.W.2d 

### 77bTex. Civ. App. - Bouston 

### [lbth Dlst.] 1972. vrit ref’d n.r.e.). The location and
uanner of 

### the conduct of businesses involving hasardous substances have long been subject to **state** and city police pover. See. e.g., Dudding v. Automatic **GAS**Co.. 193 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 

### 1946) **(storage** of liquified butane gas); Tre;rill v. **State.** w (firevorks); Vianello 

### V. State, supra (dog---v. **kennels** , Board of Adjustment of University Park. 

### 433 S.U.Zd 727 (Tex. Civ. App. - **DAlIaS** 1968. vrit ref’d n.r.e.) Goning of gasoline filling station). Thus, ahove rule city uay regulate the rmthod of storage of hasardoue materials pursuant to section 19.

p. 1014Ponorable Lloyd 

### Doggett - Pslit!5 (JM-226)

Further, in lom instan:s8, 

### acity could determine thAt the only

**“ SAfe** **”** 

### rtorage 

### of hAzArdour ,materiala 

### iA~0 Atorage ueAr it8 VAter supply or the supply’s tributaries -- **that** Auch atorage is 

### Anuisance in fACt. Certain 

### l ubstAnces anduaea of property; hazardous enough 

### to cAuse aveil-founded apprehA:Mion 

### ofdanger. Maybe totally prohibited 

### fromthe specific **areas** in rthlich they create AhAZArd. Treadgill V. 

### State. l

up ra;

Stouphtoo v, 

### ';lty of **Fort** Worth. B Just **a0** the atorase of firevorks **and** fltsmable liauida maybe nrohibited because 

### of A-vell-founded ApprAherwl.00 of &ger tb people and property neArby, ao way a home rule 

### city prohibit the storage of substancea
near ita vAter aupply vhic& if introduced into the city’s vater supply. vould endanger the he:slth, 

### rafety, Andwelfare of the public.
Thus, both the method o,[

### Norage of hAZArdouA substances and the locAtion of such atorAge maybe regulated i0 sensitiVe areas 

### pUrSUAnt to rectioo 19’s nuisance c:.ause. vithin the city’s boundaries And vithlo five thousand 

### feet of itr boundaries. Regulation of Unsafe 

### l rorage practices mayalso be enacted pursuant to 

### section 19’s VAter pollutioo prevention clause.

As indicAted. pollution of A public vatercourse is a 

### nUisAoCe; thus. 

### the **vater** supply pollw1Loo prevention **C~AUSA**of section 19also encompAsses prohibiting as **A**ouisAnce the storage of certain hazardous materials in the watersheds c’fthe city’s vater supply and defining as a nuisance 

### certain unsafe sIxwage prActices vhlch endanger the home rule city’s tiater -supply. Bowever, the vater pollution prevention **clause** ia 

### some&at broAder in nature. UAter pollutioo prevention may properly include regulArion cjfactivities 

### not necessarily constituting Anuisance. See, e.g., City of **Austin** v. J~mil, w
Nevertheless. general constltutionAl protections prohibit unreasonable ordinAoces and Arbitrary applicationa of police pover. See 

### City of BrookAide PillAge v. ComeAu. 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tu. 1982). zt. denfAd. 

### 459 U.S. 1087-(1982):ty 

### of Austin v. Teague. 570 S.U.2d 38

# 3-bx. 1978); Crow&n 4; only queAtio0 remaloiog iZIG City Of 

### GalVestOO. m. The ther any specific state or federA 1~~s linit these pavers of Ahomerule city. 

### Asindicated previously. the teat is vhether limits on 

### thatuerciae of these oovers aooear vlth “uariatatuble clarity.” SYstems, Inc., lupra. **cirz** of **Corpus Christ1**  i. Continmtal Bus

Onthe federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery **Act** 

### of 1976. 

### 42 U.S.C. 116901. et ae -Y aa Amended by the Solid WAste Diapos~l **Act**

### Amendmenta of 1980. hereinAfter RCRA], was intended as **A** compreheoaive scheme designed to deal with an alarming increase in the uncontrolled generation, trirr~sportatioo. and disposal of hazardous vastes. Section 6929 

### of the RCRAdeals vith the reteotion by the StAteO 

### of certain Authority 8s follow:

Upon the 

### l

ffecrive dAte of regulations under this subchApter no !itate or political subdivision may impose 

### any requirements lass striDgant than

p. 1015

### Hooorable Lloyd Doggett - Page6 

### W-226) 

## m

those 

### l

uthorited ,mder thie 

## l ubchApter 

### raepectiog the l

### Ameutter #.Igoverned by 

### l ueh regulations, 

### except that 

### if A~,~~~iUtiOO **of a**  ?eylAtiW 

### vith respect 

### to any **utter** 

### under thiA subchApter is postponed or

## l

njo~lnedby

### the action of AOYcourt, 00 

### StAte or pol.itical subdivision OhAll be prohibited 

### from eating with 

### raapect to the same **AApACt** 

### of such **matter** 

### until such

# tiu aa 

### l uch regulation **tAkA0** 

### 8,ffACt. NothinS lo this chaptAr shall be conetrued **to** 

### prohibit 

### any State or political subdiv:%on 

### thereof fror imporins AO~ rAquiremeots, ioc~i;,ding those **for rite**  

### selection, vhich are more (~ringent than those imposed by suchregulatloom. (Rmphamia AddAd).
Thus, 

### relevant federA lav **doe8 not**  

### prevent TA~AShomerule cities from AWCtiOg “more stringent” provisions thA0 federA regulations. Seetiuclear ingioeering Co;$1.

### 8&t. 660 F.2d 

### 241, 249 0.10~(7th 

### Cir. 1981). cert. denied, 

### b55 -U.S. 993 (1981). 

### See ~180 Mlssiasippi Comiasioo onNAtural Resowrcea v. Coatle, 625P.2d 1269, 1275 (5th Clr. 1980). 

### Slmllarly. kte IAV does not prevent such lOCAl regulation;


### The StAte’s entry iota Afield 

### of 1egidAtlon doea not 

### autowticAlly preempt 

### thAt field from

### city reguhtioo. City of Brookside Village v. Come~u.633S.U,Ild at 796. Local regulatfoa, AOCillarg to Andy ia hamonywith thegeneral scope andpurpose of atate enactmenta, i. ACCeptAblA. Cit 

### OfBrookside VillAge v. **COWAU,** 

### a; see alsO



### --yh S.U. 202 Grin-T Cit of BeAmout v. PA Y ; City of 

### BeAumoot
v. Bond, 

### 546 S.Y.2d 

### 40 (Tea. Clv. App. - 

### Beamout 1977, writ ref ’d TizTx

Tvo 

### date public her,Lth AtAtutea 

### relate to the 

## l to r8ge

of 

## hazardour uterialA our vator ruppliea: Articles 

### 4477-l And

### 4477-7, V.T.C.S. Section 23(~) 

### of Article 

### 5477-1, however, expressly indiutAa 

### that the act doec,

### notpurport to 1Mt theauthority 

### ofhome rule CitiAa 

### toenact wre c;triogeot ordiaaocea. Sirilarly, 

### l ectioo

10 **of** 

### article 

### 4477-7 indicate8 

### that. it8 proviaiooa 

### are cuulative of 

### other hro and 

## l xprrrrly dirclaims 

### any limfting 

### effect on the Authority 

### oflocal govermmta.


### Theremaining source of potential state preemption la theTexas 

### Idatar Code. The code colltaioo 

### no uprers “non-preemption” ClAuse. Aovever, 00provlaion of the code 1Mta
,vith unmistakable clarity, 

### the **powera** of how rule 

### cil:J.as
,AAenumerated in 

### l ecttoo

19

### of article 1175, 

### toregulate the

## l torage 

### of harardour materiala 

### vhich threaten ita 

## vater

l upply or joy contributing 

### vater source lo long AS the home rule city’e regulation 

### doe8 not purport 

### to lessen the pollutioo 

## l tanderde provided for in .:Irecode.



### p. 1016 IR RonorAble Lloyd Doggett - Page 7 

### (J&t-226)

The priuary 

# l otipollu~::tou provisioos **of** the code appear in chapter 26. WAter Code $926.~001, et seq. Section 26.011 provides, in **pertinent pert,**  **thet**

[e]xcept AS otherrise specifically provided. the department ShALl Ad~mioister the provisions of this chapter and shall ~astablish the level of qUALity to be maintained in, And shall 

### control the qUAlity the 

### vatsr in this **state** aA provided by this %ptsr. (Smph~eis added).

One section is specffically preemptive. Section 26.023 grants **the** Texas YAter Developueot Board “the sole Andexclusive authority to set **vater** quAlity standarda for ~11 **vater** lo the **state. ”**  Tuo other provisiona, sections 26.124,(a) and 26.177, specifically prescribe methods of loccll **govenmert** pArticipatioo in enforcement 

### of code provisions. All three of theBe proviAioos require explicatioo.

Section 26.023 is the .mly relevAnt proviaioo 

### of the Water Code clearly intended to be premptive. By granting the board sole and exclusive authority to set, by rule, vater quality StAudards. the code does not prohibit AGle city from regulating the location of and sAfe **storage** standArda for hazardous materials IO its vatersheda. The TAXaS Supreme Court encountered A **much** closer question in City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.U.Zd at 796. vhere the court found thAt atAte and federal regl:lation of the construction, SAfetyI And iostallatioo of mobile homes did not preempt consistent city zooing~ orditmuces regulating the lmation~ uobile homes And the constmctioo. operatlou. andmaluteosnce of uobile home**perks.**

The reuainisg provis1ot.r deal primrily with 

### l uforceueot of code provisions rather than 

### l ufoccement of independent, cousisteot. regs tioo pursuant to other lav. Section 

### 26.124(a) provides for enforcementof aectioo 26mling vith unauthorized diechArges) by local gave-ots but expressly ILimits such 

### l nforceuenta to the 10~~1 gwemment’s bouodaries. exclusive **of** extraterritorial jurisdiction. City **of** Bouatoo v. Clear **Cfzk** Basin Authority, 589 S.U.2d 671, 680-81 (Tu. 1979). Although sectToo 26.121 uay itself be broad enough to reach ACCidentAl “discharges” caused by unsafe storage practices, it does **not** preeupt regulacim by **horn;** rule cities. -See City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, supra. Section 

### 26.124 does-t purport to limit independent regulatioo vhich is othervise authorized by lav.

The final provision. sc’ction 26.177, deAls vith vater pollution control by cities and expressly authorizes enforcement by cities of vater pollution control **and** AbAteOmIt programs vithin their extraterritorial jurisdiction. City of Austin v. Jauail, suprs. Although the city of Austin based 1;; authority on section 26.177 rather than
on article 1175, the ca;w provides general support for local ordinances vhich **are** conslatent with code provisions.

p. 1017Donorable Lloyd Doggett - Palge8 (JH-226)

The deciaioo about sec:tiou 26.177 in City of West LAke Hills v. Uestvood Legal Defense **Fudk.** D. is ioapposite here. The court held that section 26.177 does 

### not specifically **grant** the paver to liceose private revAge :facilities located vithin the city's extrAterritorial jurisdictim because other **Water** Code proviSiOos specifically **granted** the pover to the TAXAS Wstcr COWi~SiO~. LiCeuSiAg authority is 001: A povsr thAt tvo diffAreut, ind;si;;t goveraveotal bodies can ulelily **and** consisteotly 

### l XerCi*e. the court in West Luke Bills dealt vith Ageneral l~v City. Rome1~1i cities have the benefit of ;;ticle 1175and Are subject to 

### adifferent test for limita on their paver; state 

### StAtUtOr]r limit8 00 home rule cities uust appear vith umi#takAble clarity. The Texas **Water** Code does 

### not prevent how rule cities from regulAtiog the storage of hAZArdOur uateriAls vithl.o their extraterritorial jurisdiction pursuant to sectioo 19of a.rticle 1175.

**SUMNARY**

Fureuant to 6ectiou 19 of Article 1175. V.T.C.S., hove :rule cities my regulate the locstion and atmage of hAxArdOu8 materials in their vatersheda vithio their boundaries snd vithio their ext~:a~territorial jurisdictioo.



## 7-x n WATTOX **Attorney GeoerAl**  of TEAS

**TOM GRRXN**  Firat AaAiStAAt **Attorney** G,AuerAl

DAVID R. RICRARDS Executive A88iatAnt **Attorney** GeoerAl

RICXGILPIN ChAiimau, GpiuiOu Cmittea
PrcpAred by Rick Gilpio 

### ASSiStAntAttorney tinera

**APPROVED**: OPINION COMIITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman Colio CArl SuSAnGarriaOn JimMoellinger 

### NAnCy**SUttOD**