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

Executive Director Texas Water Quality Board Re: 

### 1.108 tivaca Street 'TheState of Texas Water Pollution Control Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Mr. Yantis: Compact

We quoteyour recent opinion request:
"Section

### 8 of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct, 

### 33U.S.C. 1158, establishes a programwhereby the federal governmentmay "makegrants to any State municipality Intermunicipalor Interstateagency for the construct& or
of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of untreated or Inadequatelytreated sewage or other waste into any waters and for the purposeof reports, plans, and specifications In connection therewith.

"The basic federal grant whichmay 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 Increased to a maximum of 

### 50%OI!the federal'grantmay be 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 Increasedby an additional 10s of the grant for any projectwhich has been certifiedby the state or other BpeCified agency of the state as being Qn conformity with the comprehensiveplan developed or in processof development for a metropolitan area in which the federal constructionassistance Is to be UBed.
"TheUnited States Congresshas authorized and appropriated substantiallyIncreased amounts of funds for the constructionassistance program establishedunder Section 

### 8 of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct. 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 stateswhich provide for the 25% state participationspecified in clause (7)of Section 8(b) of the Act. If the State of Texas within the next few weeks can establish a state constructionassistance program acceptable to the federal government, therewould be an additional amount of approximately $g,OOO,OOOavallable to Increase to'the 50% or 55% grant level the federal participationIn the cost of treatment works projectsawarded grants from funds appropriated for the 1970 federal fiscal year and approximately $31 000,000 for projectsawarded 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 fiscalyears 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 constructionassistance program cannot be establishedwithin 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 statewill lapse and will be reallocated to other states.

"At the present time there Is no legislationauthorlzlng the Texas Water Quality Board to establisha construction assistance programwhich would enable this state to qualify for the increased federal assistance, although a proposed constitutionalamendment to authorize the eBtabIlShmentof such a program will be submitted to the voters of the state on May 18, 1971, and enabling legislationhas been introduced In the current session of the Legislature. During the Interim, until such time as a state conStruCtiOnassistance program administeredby 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 StateAgency to 8rovlde the state financialasslstance requiredunder Section (b)of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct. A copy of the compact is attached, along with a copy of an order passed by this agency approvlng and confirming the compact.

fully"Withrespect to the facts outlined above, we respectrequestyour 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 signatoriesto the by lawto 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 bemade pursuant to clause 

### (7) of Section 8(b) of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct?' '


### 3. Are the signatories to to issue bonds tomake projects in accordance the compact?" the compact authorized the payments for all with the provisionsof

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 projectsawarded federal grants from funds appropriated for the 1970 and 1971 federal fiscalyears. 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 TexasMunicipal Water District, San Antonio River Authority, Gulf CoastWaste DisposalAuthority Sablne River Authority of TeXaB ColoradoRiverMunicipal kater District Red River Authorit; of Texas, Brazos RiverAuthority, Guadalupe-Blanc0 RiverAuthority, and Upper Guadalupe RiverAuthority.

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 "TheAgency" 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 

### 1158of Title 

### 33of 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 Authorityv. McGraw, 

### 125Tex. 

### 268, 83Sw 2d 629 (1935); Lower Colorado RiverAuthorityv. ChemldaiBank & Trust i: 18 s d 461 (Tex.Clv.App. 1945, aff. 144 Tex. $6: 19: S:!::d 

### 48).

These agencies are createdby law pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59, Constitutionof Texas; collectivelythese signatories, for the purposesbeing herein considered, constitutean 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 ControlAct.
This office has previouslyheld that a county and a city had the Implied authority to contract and jointly sponsorvarious activities required by the Office of Economic Opportunity of a communityaction agency where each political subdivisionexercised severally only those powers each OBBeBSed Individually. Attorney General Opinion

### M-689 (19707. The same holding would be applicable to such agencies of the stateas river authorities and municipal water districts. 

### 60Tex. 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 accordancewith Its terms, and that said signatoriesare authorizedby Article 

### 762lg,Section 10,Vernon's Civil Sta.tutes,to Issue bonds to make the payments for all such projects In accordance with the provisionsof said Compact.

SUMMARY
The signatories to the State of Texas Water Pollution Control Compact (certainriver authorities and municipal water districts) are officially deslgnated and lawfully constitutedgovernmental agencies of the state pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59, Constitutionof TexaB. For the purposesherein considered, theymay collectivelyact 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-.

HonorableHugh C.Yantls, Jr., page 

### 5 (M-822)

Water Pollution ControlAct. The signatories may issue bonds under Section 10 of Article 

### 76216,Vernon's Civil Statutes, to make the payments for all projects In accordancewith the provisions of the Compact.

Preparedby Joseph H, Sharpley AssistantAttorney General

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Very truly yours,

CRAWFORD C,MARTIN Attorney Generalof 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-