i . . 

JIM MAlTOX 

lttorney General 

-upmeme cowl BulldIng 

0.80x 12sB 

Al”. lx. n711. zE4B 

512l47525Dl 

-elex B1074.1367 

l IocOpl*r 512l475-0255 

‘14 J6ckmm. Suit. 700 

Iah*. TX. 75202-4505 

.14i74269*4 

624 AlBwl~ Ave., stdt* 15D 

il Pus. 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 

loo Ydll Pm., Suit. 460 

son Alltolllo. TX. ma32797 

512R2s4101 

An Equal OpcmtunltW 

Attlmutm ActIon EFPlOveThe Attorney General of Texas 

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 

and vhich provide 6tandarde for 

the Eafe 6torAge of hArardou6 

vater6hedA 

the how 

materf.16 over the 

in end Eurrouuding 

rule city 

Dear SeUetor Doggatt: 

You o6k vhether rection 19 of 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 home rule city. We 

conclude (1) that IL home ~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 hOme Nle Cities. Section 

19 of article 1175 pr~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 A distance 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 Novned by 6Aid city And lying outride of 

said city; to prohibit the pollution of 6x1~ 

6tre.m. dmin or tributnrle6 thereof, vhich msy 

conetitutezthe l o ur c a of VAter 6upply of Any cite 
Honoroble Lloyd Doggett - Purge 2 (JM-226) 

And to proVid6 for policing the 6omc 06 Veil a6 to 

provide for tha p;otcction of Any vater rhedr And 

the policing of iom6; to inspect doirie6, 61.6ughter 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. on vhether 

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 And underecored clms~s vhich d6.16 vith pollution prevention in 

Any v&y limits such control to vithin A home rule 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, hcme rule cities derive their paver from the 

constitution rather th6n f:rom legi6lation. See Lover Colorado River 

Authority v. City of San fiwco6. 523 S.W.Zd 6T. 643 (Tex. 1975). Ao 

a result, 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. - Son Antonio 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 Du6 Sgrteme. 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 meanings out of harmony or inconsistent with other 

provisions even if the prwi6loa might be EUECtptiblt to such con6tNCtiOn 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) ; l ee Merchant6 F&Et Mo.: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 c i6e of p6rticulAr 

extrat6rritoriAl pover6. 

Article 1176 further cl6rifi66 the effect of Article 1173 by 

providing that 

[tJhe enumeration of power6 hereilubova m6de rhall 

never be ConEtrued to pr6ClUdA. by implication or 

otherwi6e. Any 6lN:h City frW 6XEtCiEing the 

power6 incident to the anjoymant of loco1 Eelfgovernment, 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 

the vater pollution-prevvcntion clau6e of rection 19 doe6 not limit the 

l XerCl6e Of 6uch pover to vithin A home Nl6 City’6 boundorier. 

To the ContrArY, the v6t6r 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 A public nulMnce, Gold6mith 6 Pwell 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. 

Life Insurance Company of Amc_rico v. Work. 77 S.U.Zd 1036 (Tex. T 1934 . 

Neverthele66, the votcrshedr of 6ome VAterCourAe6 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 juriediction AA e6tAbliEhed by l :tiuu 3 of Article 9700, V.T.C.S. Thu6. 

vhen taken togethcr. Article6 1175 And 97th authorize A horn6 rule city 

to dcfina nuiaonces And to prevent vAt6r 6upply pollution vithin it6 

bOUndOr And vithin five thourond fact of ita boundarier. And, Addit10uA11y. to prevent p01.1.uti0n of ita voter 6UPP lY 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. 1013 
Honorable Lloyd DoSSett - P,aSe 4 (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. _ A city cannot declare that A subject of - 

regulation in a nuisance 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, 275 S.W.2d At 661; Stoughton V. 

City of Port Worth. 277 S,W.2d 150 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1955. 

no vrit); see also Vlanello v. State, 627 S.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 A nuisance 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, 565 s.W.211 373, 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 A court 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. A hCpC rule city my.declere A public nuisance that 

vhich IA a hasard to the health, safety, and velfare of the public. 

Vianello v. State, B; 8art v. City of Ds~~As. rupra; Hill v. 

Villarreal. B. An object 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. a nuisance 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. A city may proAcribe 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, a hove rule 

city uay regulate the rmthod of storage of hasardoue materials 

pursuant to section 19. 

p. 1014 
Ponorable Lloyd Doggett - Pslit! 5 (JM-226) 

Further, in l om instan:s8, a city 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 A nuisance 

in fACt. Certain l ubstAnces and uaea of property; hazardous enough to 

cAuse a veil-founded apprehA:Mion of danger. May be totally prohibited 

from the specific areas in rthlich they create A hAZArd. Treadgill V. 

State. l up r a ; Stouphtoo v, ';lty of Fort Worth. B Just a0 the 

atorase of firevorks and fltsmable liauida may be 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, And welfare of the public. 

Thus, both the method o,[ Norage of hAZArdouA substances and the 

locAtion of such atorAge may be 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 may also 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 19 also 

encompAsses prohibiting as A ouisAnce the storage of certain hazardous 

materials in the watersheds c’f the 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 cjf activities not necessarily constituting 

A nuisance. 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 A home rule city. As indicated previously. the 

teat is vhether limits on that uerciae of these oovers aooear vlth 

“uariatatuble clarity.” 

SYstems, Inc., lupra. 

cirz of Corpus Christ1 i. Continmtal Bus 

On the 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 RCRA deals 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 - Page 6 W-226) 

m 

those l uthorited ,mder thie l ubchApter raepectiog 

the l Ame utter #.I governed 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~lned by the action of AOY court, 

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 

such regulatloom. (Rmphamia AddAd). 

Thus, relevant federA lav doe8 not prevent TA~AS home rule cities 

from AWCtiOg “more stringent” provisions thA0 federA regulations. 

See tiuclear 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 on NAtural Resowrcea v. Coatle, 625 P.2d 1269, 1275 (5th 

Clr. 1980). Slmllarly. kte IAV does not prevent such lOCAl 

regulation; 

The StAte’s entry iota A field of 1egidAtlon doea not autowticAlly preempt thAt field from city reguhtioo. City of Brookside 

Village v. Come~u. 633 S.U,Ild at 796. Local regulatfoa, AOCillarg to 

Andy ia hamony with the general scope and purpose of atate enactmenta, 

i. ACCeptAblA. Cit Of Brookside VillAge v. COWAU, a; see alsO 

Cit Y of BeAmout --yh v. PA S.U. 202 Grin-T ; 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 r 8ge 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, not purport to 1Mt the authority of home 

rule CitiAa to enact wre c;triogeot ordiaaocea. Sirilarly, l ec tioo 10 

of article 4477-7 indicate8 that. it8 proviaiooa are cuulative of 

other hro and l xprrrrly dirclaims any limfting effect on the 

Authority of local govermmta. 

The remaining source of potential state preemption la the Texas 

Idatar Code. The code colltaioo no uprers “non-preemption” ClAuse. 

Aovever, 00 provlaion of the code 1Mta , vith unmistakable clarity, 

the powera of how rule cil:J.as , AA enumerated in l ec ttoo 19 of article 

1175, to regulate the l torage of harardour materiala vhich threaten 

ita va tel upply r or joy contributing vater source l o long AS the home 

rule city’e regulation doe8 not purport to lessen the pollutioo 

l tanderde provided for in .:Ire code. 

p. 1016 I 
R 

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 And exclusive 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 A Gle 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. and maluteosnce 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 enforcement of 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. 1017 
Donorable Lloyd Doggett - Palge 8 (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 Xer Ci*e. 

the court in West Luke Bills dealt vith A general l~v City. Rome 1~1i 

cities have the benefit of ;;ticle 1175 and Are subject to a different 

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 19 of 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 

RICX GILPIN 

ChAiimau, GpiuiOu Cmittea 

PrcpAred by Rick Gilpio 

ASSiStAnt Attorney tinera 

APPROVED : 

OPINION COMIITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Colio CArl 

SuSAn GarriaOn 

Jim Moellinger 

NAnCy SUttOD