Honorable Hugh C. Yantls, Jr. Opinion No. M-822 

Executive Director 

Texas Water Quality Board Re: 

1.108 tivaca Street 

'The State of Texas 

Water Pollution Control 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Dear Mr. Yantis: 

Compact 

We quote your recent opinion request: 

"Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

33 U.S.C. 1158, establishes a program whereby the federal 

government may "make grants to any State municipality 

Intermunicipal or Interstate agency for the construct& 

or 

of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of 

untreated or Inadequately treated sewage or other waste 

into any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and 

specifications In connection therewith. 

"The basic federal grant which may be made may not exceed 30% of the estimated reasonable cost of the project. 

However. under clause (7) of Section 8(b) of the Act the 

federal'grant may be Increased to a maximum of 50% OI! the 

eBtimated reasonable 

the project Is to be 

25% of the estimated 

which federal grants 

cost of a project If the state in which 

constructed agrees to pay not less than 

reaeonable costs of all projects for 

are to be made. 

"Section 8(f) of the Act authorizes the federal grant 

to be further Increased by an additional 10s of the grant 

for any project which has been certified by the state or 

other BpeCified agency of the state as being Qn conformity 

with the comprehensive plan developed or in process of 

development for a metropolitan area in which the federal 

construction assistance Is to be UBed. 

"The United States Congress has authorized and appropriated substantially Increased amounts of funds for the 

construction assistance program established under Section 

8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These additional funds are avaflable to increase the federal partlci- 

-3981- 
Honorable Hugh C. Yantls, Jr., page 2, (M-822) 

patlon In projects In those states which provide for the 

25% state participation specified in clause (7) of Section 

8(b) of the Act. If the State of Texas within the next 

few weeks can establish a state construction assistance 

program acceptable to the federal government, there would 

be an additional amount of approximately $g,OOO,OOO avallable to Increase to'the 50% or 55% grant level the federal 

participation In the cost of treatment works projects awarded 

grants from funds appropriated for the 1970 federal fiscal 

year and approximately $31 000,000 for projects awarded 

grants from funds appropriated for the 1971 federal fiscal 

year. It would be expected that projects to be awarded 

grants from funds appropriated for the. 1972 and subsequent 

federal fiscal years would be eligible to receive these 

higher levels of federal assistance so long as Congress 

continues to appropriate the necessary funds and the state 

continues Its required level of participation. 

"If an acceptable interim state construction assistance 

program cannot be established within the next few weeks, 

the approximately $40,000,000 In 1970 and 1971 federal funds 

which would otherwise be available to Increase the grants 

to projects in this state will lapse and will be reallocated 

to other states. 

"At the present time there Is no legislation authorlzlng the Texas Water Quality Board to establish a construction 

assistance program which would enable this state to qualify 

for the increased federal assistance, although a proposed 

constitutional amendment to authorize the eBtabIlShment of 

such a program will be submitted to the voters of the state 

on May 18, 1971, and enabling legislation has been introduced 

In the current session of the Legislature. During the Interim, 

until such time as a state conStruCtiOn assistance program 

administered by the Texas Water Quality Board can be established, 

several river authorities and municipal water districts In the 

State have entered into a Water Pollution Control Compact to 

serve as the State Agency to 

8 

rovlde the state financial asslstance required under Section (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. A copy of the compact is attached, along 

with a copy of an order passed by this agency approvlng and 

confirming the compact. 

fully 

"With respect to the facts outlined above, we respectrequest your opinion on the following questlons: 

1. Is each of the signatories to the compact an 

agency of the State of Texas? 

-3982- 
Honorable Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., page 3 (M-822) 

2. Are the signatories to the 

by law to pay, pursuant to 

compact authorized 

the compact, for 

of Texas not less .-I _ 

and on behalf~of the State 

than 25% of the estimated reasonaDle costs of 

all projects in this state for which federal 

grants are to be made pursuant to clause (7) 

of Section 8(b) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act?' ' 

3. Are the signatories to 

to issue bonds to make 

projects in accordance 

the compact?" 

the compact authorized 

the payments for all 

with the provisions of 

Your principal concern appears to be whether the State 

of Texas will be able to qualify, at least on an interim 

basis, for Increased federal grants for projects awarded 

federal grants from funds appropriated for the 1970 and 1971 

federal fiscal years. After substantial research we have 

concluded that the State will be able to so qualify and It 

Is our opinion that each of the questions propounded should 

be~answered In the affirmative. 

The signatories to the compact are as follows: North 

Texas Municipal Water District, San Antonio River Authority, 

Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Sablne River Authority 

of TeXaB Colorado River Municipal kater District Red River 

Authorit; of Texas, Brazos River Authority, Guadalupe-Blanc0 

River Authority, and Upper Guadalupe River Authority. 

You have submitted to UB a copy of a document entitled, 

"The State of Texas Water Pollution Control Compact", dated 

March 26, 1971, with the signatories to said Compact collectively being designated as "The Agency" under said Compact. 

Also you have submitted to us a copy of Hoard Order No. 71- 

0326-10, passed by your Hoard, approving and conflrming said 

Compact, and requesting the Attorney ffeneralls opinion concerning the authority of The Agency to pay, and agree to pay, 

for and on behalf of the State of Texas, pursuant to the 

aforesaid Compact, not less than 2,5$ of the estimated costs 

of all water pollution control projects in this State for 

which Federal rants are to be made pursuant to clause (7) 

of subsection b) of Section 1158 of Title 33 of the United 

States Code, as amended. 

We are of the opinion that each of the signatories to 

said Compact Is an officially designated and lawfully constl- 

-3983- 
- 

Honorable Hugh C. Yantls, Jr., page 4 (M-822) 

tuted agency of the State of Texas, Lower Colorado River 

Authority v. McGraw, 125 Tex. 268, 83 S w 2d 629 (1935); 

Lower Colorado River Authority v. Chemldai Bank & Trust 

i: 18 s d 461 (Tex. Clv. App. 1945, aff. 144 Tex. 

$6: 19: S:!::d 48). 

These agencies are created by law pursuant to Article 

XVI, Section 59, Constitution of Texas; collectively these 

signatories, for the purposes being herein considered, 

constitute an agency of the State of Texas authorized by 

law to pay, and who agree to pay, for and on behalf of the 

State of Texas, not less than 25s of the estimated reasonable costs of all projects In the state for which federal 

grants are to be made pursuant to clause 7 of Section 8(b) 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

This office has previously held that a county and a 

city had the Implied authority to contract and jointly 

sponsor various activities required by the Office of Economic Opportunity of a community action agency where each 

political subdivision exercised severally only those powers 

each OBBeBSed Individually. Attorney General Opinion M-689 

(19707. The same holding would be applicable to such agencies 

of the state as river authorities and municipal water districts. 

60 Tex. Jur.2d 747, Waters, Sets. 381 & 382. 

We are further of the opinion that said Compact Is valid 

and binding upon the signatories thereto In accordance with 

Its terms, and that said signatories are authorized by Article 762lg, Section 10, Vernon's Civil Sta.tutes, to Issue 

bonds to make the payments for all such projects In accordance with the provisions of said Compact. 

SUMMARY 

The signatories to the State of Texas Water 

Pollution Control Compact (certain river authorities 

and municipal water districts) are officially deslgnated and lawfully constituted governmental agencies 

of the state pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59, 

Constitution of TexaB. For the purposes herein considered, they may collectively act as such an agency 

authorized by law to pay, and agree to pay for and 

on behalf of the State of Texas not less &han 25% 

of the eBtimated reasonable co&s of all projects 

In the state for which federal grants are to be made 

pursuant to clause 7 of Section 8(b) of the Federal 

-3984- 
. 

Honorable Hugh C. Yantls, Jr., page 5 (M-822) 

Water Pollution Control Act. The signatories 

may issue bonds under Section 10 of Article 

76216, Vernon's Civil Statutes, to make the 

payments for all projects In accordance with 

the provisions of the Compact. 

Prepared by Joseph H, Sharpley 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Very truly yours, 

CRAWFORD C,MARTIN 

Attorney General of Texas 

B 

FirBi? Assistant 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Roger Tyler 

A. J. Ctallerano 

2. T. ForteBCUe III 

J. C. hViB 

MEADE F. (IRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Asslatant 

ALFREDWALKER 

Executive Assistant 

-3985-