THEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Honorable Ernest Guinn 

County Attorney 

El Paso:Countg 

El Paso, Texas 

Dear Elr, Guinn: OpinLon No. o-2547 

Ret Right of an Independent school 

district to vote bonds for the 

purpose of constructing a water 

supply system for a public free 

school building. 

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 

15, 1940, in which gou'propound to this department for a legal 

opfnion the following question: 

"The one question inVOlVea is whether or 

not the voting of bonds for a water supply sgstern for a Public Free School Building falls 

withIn the meaning of 'for the purchase, construction, repair OP equipment of a Public Free 

School Building." 

The contemplated water supply system is for the benefit of an independent school district school building. 

It is the oplnion of this department that your question 

should be answered In the affirmative. 

The statutory authority for the Issuance of bonds by 

an Independent school district 1s found. in Article 2784 of the 

Revised Civil Statutes at subdivision 2, which authorizes the 

issuance of bonds "for the purchase, construction, repair or 

equipment of public frte school buildings withtn the limits of 

such district * + * *. 

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

An equipment of a building means~any appurtenant, appendage, or fixture which is attached to, or immediately accessible 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 is matter of common knowledge that every public 

building (or bullding whatsoever intended for human habitation) 

must be suitably furnished with piping and other fixtures for 

supplying water to the occupants thereof. Undoubtedly, such 

things constitute equipment of such building. Where there is 

a water supply system the things mentioned might, as matter 

of fact, be all the equipment for supplying water necessary 

in the particular-case. Where, however, there is no such 

system accessible, these things would 'be entirely inadequate 

for the purpose for which they were 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 equipment as the 

pipes and other fixtures installed in the building. The tank, 

however, in turn would likewise be useless unless there was 

water available for use. The rule of necessary implication 

would authorize the impounding of water, where possible, or 

the sinking of a well or wells where necessary, to supply this 

indispensable water -- the very essence of the power. 

No one would dr~~'~that the installation of a system 

of gutters, pipes and cistern for conserving the rainfall upon the roof would, be an "equipment" of the building. For 

precisely the same reasons the sinking of a well, and the installation of the necessary pump for elevating the water would 

be in every just sense a part of the equipment of a building 

for supplying water. 

This reasoning is justified and even required by our 

rule of liberal construction of civil statutes, giQi.IIg to such 

statutes a meaning, where possible, reasonably calculated to 

carry out the purposes thereof. (See Rev, Civ. Stat., Art. 

10, Sub, 8). 

Our definition of "equipment" flnds direct support In 

the case of Jewett vs. School District (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 include power to put into it the necessary equipment, such 

as desks, boards, etc., and heating plant. The term 'equipment' 

is broad and may include articles which are attached to the 

building as an integral park 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 implied power, but we have express power to equip. 

A storage tank owned and used by a refining company 

in connection with its business of refining oil has been held 
Honorable 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 supply~water is an equipment of the building in-connection with 

which it is used, has not been often decided, but those cases 

in which the question has arisen are in line with the conclusion we have announced above. 

The Kansas statutes authorize a school board to provide the necessary "appendages" for its school house. It'was 

held in schof iela vs. school Distract (Ran.) 184 Pac. 480, 

that the word "appendages", as used in the statutes, should 

be construed broadly 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 particular well 

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. 

It was held, also, In Neubauer vs. Union Township, 8 

Ohio S & C Dec. 349, 7 A. L. R. p. 798 Anno., that a school 

board may authorize the local school director to make a contract for the sinking of a well, and that a contract entered 

into for this purpose with 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, 'the grading and 

fencing of a school lot, the furnishing of a supply of drinking 

water, and the equipping of the school house with school furniture are all a legitimate part of the construction of a school 

house, and the proper equipment of school property, and within 

a statute empowering a school district to Issue bonds 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 adjoining was a "necessary appendage 

y;:, s;g;: py",;1" 0 Creager Q. Wright School District 

The same authority also holds that 

necessary outhouses are "appendages." There is no substantial 

difference in the meaning of the word "equipment" and the word 

"appendage", when used In such connection with respect to 

bullaings. 

A School building without a system of water supply is 

not equipped for the purpose for which it was built. 

The foregoing discussion-pertains to the uses to which 

the bond proceeds may be devoted, but we direct your attention 

to the statutory wording of the purposes for which bonds may 
Honorable 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 other words, it is advisable to conform to the 

statutes and thereby avoid any question as to the sufficiency 

of the purpose. 

Upon these considerations we 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 Committee By s/BWB Chairman