THEATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

Honorable Ernest Guinn CountyAttorney El Paso:Countg El Paso, Texas
Dear Elr,

Guinn: OpinLonNo. o-2547

Ret Right of an Independent school district to vote bonds for the purpose of constructinga water supply system for a public free schoolbuilding. This will acknowledgereceipt of your letter of July 15, 1940, inwhich gou'propound to this department for a legal opfnion the followingquestion:

"The one question **inVOlVea** iswhether or not the voting of bonds for a water supply sgsternfor a Public Free School Building falls withIn the meaning of 'forthe purchase, construction,repair OP equipment of a Public Free School Building." The contemplatedwater supply system is for the benefit of an independentschooldistrict school building.

It is the oplnion of this department that your question should be answered In the affirmative.

The statutoryauthority for the Issuance of bonds by an Independent schooldistrict 1s found.inArticle 2784 of the Revised Civil Statutes at subdivision2, which authorizes the issuanceof bonds "for the purchase, construction,repair or equipment of public frte schoolbuildingswithtn the limits of suchdistrict * + * *.

The question resolves itself to this: Is the construction of a water supply system for use in connectionwith a public school building "an equipment" of such schoolbuilding?

An equipment of a building means~any appurtenant,appendage, or fixturewhich is attached to, or immediatelyaccessible to the building, suitable to, and intended for use in the enjoyment of the building for the purpose for which it was constructed.Honorable Ernest Guinn - page 2 O-2547

It ismatter of common knowledge that every public building (orbulldingwhatsoever intended for human habitation) must be suitably furnishedwith piping and other fixtures for supplyingwater to the occupants thereof. Undoubtedly, such things constitute equipment of such building. Where there **is** a water supply system the thingsmentioned might, as matter of fact, be all the equipment for supplyingwater necessary in the particular-case. Where, however, there is no such system accessible, these things would 'beentirely inadequate for the purpose for which theywere intended,unless there be a tank or reservoir to con'caln the water to be supplied. Such tank would be as much a part of the equipmentas the pipes and other fixtures installed in the building. The tank, however, in turn would likewisebe useless unless there was water available for use. The rule of necessary implication would authorize the impoundingof water, where possible, or the sinking of a well or wells where necessary, to supply this indispensablewater -- the very essence of the power.

No onewould dr~~'~t hat the installationof a system of gutters,pipes and cistern for conserving the rainfall upon the roof would,be an "equipment"of the building. For precisely the samereasons the sinking of a well, and the installationof the necessarypump for elevating the water would be in every just sense a part of the equipment of a building for supplyingwater.

This reasoning is justifiedand even requiredby our rule of liberal construction of civil statutes, **giQi.IIg** to such statutesa meaning,where possible,reasonably calculated to carry out the purposes thereof. (SeeRev, **Civ.** Stat., Art. 10, Sub, 8).

Our definition of "equipment"flnds direct support In the case of Jewett vs. SchoolDistrict (Wyo). 54 Pac. (2) 546, quoting from an earlier case by that court saying, 'Power to erect a school house should ordinarily,doubtless, be held to includepower to put into it the necessary equipment, such as desks, boards, etc., and heating plant. The term 'equipment' isbroad and may includearticleswhich are attached to the building as an integralpark thereof, as well as articles not belonging to that category. That case construed the express power "to erect or enlarge a building" to include the implied power to construct necessary equipment for the building.

In the present case we are not driven to the doctrine of impliedpower, but we have expresspower to equip.

A storage tank owned and used by a refining company in connectionwith its business of refining oil has been heldHonorable Ernest Guinn - page 3 O-2547

to be an equipment even though the tank is actually constructed upon land not owned but leased by the oil company, Trust Co. **QS,** Equitable 508, United States Oil & Refining Co., 35 Fed. (2)

The direct question of whether OP not a well to **sup** ply~water is an equipment of the building in-connectionwith which it is used, has not been often decided, but those cases inwhich the question has arisen are in line with the conclusionwe have announced above.

The Kansas statutesauthorize a school board to provide the necessary "appendages"for its schoolhouse. It'was held in schof**iela vs.**  **school Distract**  (Ran.) 184 Pac. 480, that the word "appendages",as used in the statutes, should be construedbroadly so as to include a well on the school premises, The court cites one of its prior decisions---Hemme vs. School District, (Kan) 1 Pa@, 104. The particularwell in controversy there **proved** to be a dry hole, but nevertheless, the contra& by the board for sinking the well was held to be a **Valid** exercise of the board's power.

Itwas held, also, InNeubauer vs. Union Township, 8 Ohio S & C Dec. 349, 7 A. L. R. p. 798 Anno., that a school board may authorize the local schooldirector to make a contract for the sinking of a well, and that a contract entered into for this purposewith the director is binding on the board. The A. L. R. annotation also cites State vs. Board of Education (NJL) 31 Atl. 1033, as holding, 'thegrading and fencing of a school lot, the furnishing of a supply of drinking water, and the equipping of the school housewith school furniture are all a legitimatepart of the construction of a school house, and the proper equipment of schoolproperty, and within a statute empoweringa schooldistrict to Issuebonds for the purpose of purchasing land and building a school house."

It was further been held that a line fence to separate school premises from thisa adjoiningwas a "necessaryappendage y;:, s;g;: py",;1" 0 Creager **Q.** Wright SchoolDistrict The same authority also holds that necessary outhousesare "appendages." There is no substantial difference in the meaning of the word "equipment"and the word "appendage",when used In such connectionwith respect to 

### bullaings.

A School buildingwithout a system ofwater supply is not equipped for the purpose forwhich itwas built.

The foregoingdiscussion-pertainsto the uses to which the bond proceedsmay be devoted, but we direct your attention to the statutorywording of the purposes for which bonds mayHonorable Ernest Guinn - page 4 O-2547

be issued,and advise that the pertinent language should be followed in submitting the proposition to the voters for adoption. In otherwords, it is advisable to conform to the statutesand thereby **avoid** any question as to the sufficiency of the purpose.

Upon these considerationswe answer your inquiry as above indicated. Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/Ocie Speer Ocie Speer Assistant
OS-MR-WC

APPROVED AUG 3, 1940 s/Grover Sellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman