The Attorney General of Texas 

June 13, 1985 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12549 

Austin, TX. 79711-2549 

5121475-2501 

Telex 9101974-1397 

Telecopier 5121475-0266 

Honorable Carlos Valdez 

Nueces County Attomey 

County Courthouse, Raom 206 

Corpus Christi, Tems 78401 

Opinion No. JM-324 

Re: Uay a county fund an educational campaign to discourage 

public litter, and related 

questions 

714 Jackson. Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 

2141742-0944 

Dear Mr. Valdez: 

Your office advises that the Nueces County Commissioners Court 

has been asked to I~artially fund a nonprofit corporation that conducts 

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 area-wide educational programs for the abatement of litter and trash, 

El Paso, TX. 79905-2793 and which on occasion also organizes volunteers for specific cleanup 

9151533.3494 activities, and fox the distribution of litter and refuse recepticles 

in the area. You ask if the county may legally supply funds to the 

1001 Texas. Suite 700 organization for suc:h purposes. 

Houston, TX. 77002-3111 

713/223-5886 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

8061747-5239 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAlle”, TX. 79501-1695 

5,2/692-4547 

Article III, section 52 of the Texas Constitution reads in 

pertinent part: 

(a) I$:cept as otherwise provided by this 

section, ,the Legislature shall have no Tower to 

authorize any county, city, town or other 

politica:. corporation or subdivision of the State 

to lend j.ts credit or to grant public money or 

thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, 

associat::on or corporation whatsoever, or to 

become a stockholder-in such corporation, association or company. 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 

512/2254191 The only exceptions "othewise provided" allow the lending of credit 

for certain purpomg upon a vote of residents. (A tax to service any 

An Equal OppOrtUnitY/ indebtedness assumed must be established.) Those purposes, however, 

Affirmative Action Employer are limited to improvement. construction, maintenance or operation of 

waterways, bodies of water, or roads and turnpikes. None of the 

exceptions purport 1:o permit grants of money; they make exception only 

for "lending of credit" in certain situations. And none make 

exception expressl:r for purposes of the control or abatement of trash 

or litter. 

p. 1481 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 2 (JM-324) 

Inasmuch as counties pos~!ss only those powers given them by the 

Constitution of Texas or st,atutes enacted pursuant thereto, Tex. 

Const. art. V, 918(b); Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. 

1948). and inasmuch as thz&slature is prohibited by article III. 

section 52 of the Texas Constj.t.ution from authorizing a county to make 

a gratuitous e of funds to a corporation for any purpose, the 

Nueces County Cormnissioners Court may not make an unrestricted grant 

to the nonprofit corporation for the purpose of funding its operations 

in whole or in part. See Tex. Const. art. XI, 53; Attorney General 

Opinions JM-103 (1983);%32!1 (1981); R-1189 (1978); H-397 (1974). 

Notwithstanding the above, a county is not prevented by article 

III. section 52 or article XI, section 3, of the Texas Constitution 

from using a nonprofit corpomtion as an instrumentality to accomplish 

a proper county purpose so lmng as it retains, by contract or other 

means, sufficient control of the matter to assure that the public 

purpose will be served. See .Attomey General Opinion JM-103 (1983). 

If an educational progracior the abatement of litter and trash 

cleanup activities, and the placement of receptacles for litter and 

refuse, is a program which t‘le county itself might lawfully conduct, 

it can contract in good fait‘1 to pay a nonprofit corporation for its 

help in accomplishing that purpose. See Attorney General Opinion 

JM-65 (1983). 

- 

We believe the Litter Abatement Act, coupled with the declaration 

in section 1.07 of article 4414b. V.T.C.S., that the 

commissioners court of any county shall have the 

authority to appropriate and expend money from the 

general revenues oji its county for and in behalf 

of public health and sanitation within its county, 

furnishes ample authority for the commissioners court of Nueces County 

to conduct a public educaticnal campaign designed to abate littering 

in the county. 

The Texas Litter Abatenlent Act, article 4477-9a. V.T.C.S., was 

enacted in 1981 to take effect in 1982. Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 741 

at 2710. It makes it a crilne to dispose of trash, junk, garbage, 

refuse, unsightly matter, or other solid waste on a public highway, 

right-of-way, or on other prblic or private property without written 

consent, or into any inland or coastal waters of Texas. And the 

provision is enforceable by z. 

law enforcement o!ificer of this state or of a 

political subdivision of this state or a health 

officer of a municipality authorized by law to 

regulate matters of sanitation and public 

health. . . . 

p. 1482 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page: 3 (JM-324) 

V.T.C.S. art. 4477-9a. $2.Ol(ii). 

Another section of art:;cle 4477-9a makes it illegal to dump 

untreated or unprocessed litter or refuse within three hundred yards 

of a state highway, even if At is done by a municipal corporation or 

by the owner of the land, or tly someone with the owner's consent. Id. 

$2.04(c). A county or distr1c.t attorney may bring suit to preventx 

restrain a violation of the neiction. Id. 52.04(g). In our opinion, 

these provisions clearly imply power incounty officials to discourage 

littering and, in fact, make it the duty of the county to prevent 

littering. 

The possibility of a ntbxus between public health and litter, 

trash, refuse, rubbish, junk 'KC garbage is not doubted. See Attorney 

General Opinions JM-65 (1983); H-1280 (1978). Cf. Pricey City of 

Junction, 711 F.2d 582 (5th ~Cir. 1983). We believe, therefore -- 

particularly if the commissLoners court finds as a fact that a 

campaign against litter would prevent a deterioration of public 

health, or serve to improve il. -- that the expenditure of county funds 

for the purpose of preventing public or private litter is authorized 

by the ststutes of this stat!?.. A contract with a private nonprofit 

corporation whereby the count)' provides funds in return for the aid of 

the organization in accomplishi,ng that purpose would not be prohibited 

so long as the contractual prT{isions assure receipt by the county of 

an adequate quid pro quo designed to further that end. - Cf. Attorney 

General Opinion H-1123 (1978). 

6,UHMARY -- 

A publicly funLe,d contract with a private 

nonprofit corporation to aid Nueces County in 

preventing public or private litter is not 

prohibited so long as the contractual provisions 

assure receipt by the county of an adequate quid 

pro quo designed to s,ccomplish that purpose. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICRARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1483 
Honorable Carlo6 Valdez - Page 4 (~~-324) 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney Gen,eral 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Moellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Bruce Youngblood 

~1. 1484