The Attorney General of Texas 

April 25, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable James M. Windham 

Chairman 

Board of Corrections 

Livingston, Texas 77351 

Dear Mr. Windham: 

Opinion No. Ii- 1158 

Re: Acquisition of land for a 

prison farm. 

You have asked three questions relating to the acquisition of land on 

which to construct a new prison unit. The questions involve a rider to the 

General Appropriations Act for then 1978-79 fiscal years. That rider provides: 

The Department of Corrections is authorized to 

squire from the proceeds of the sale or exchange of 

the Blue Ridge Farm, and from the appropriation for 

prison construction, sufficient acreage in West Texas, 

not to exceed a valuation of $8,000,000 upon which to 

construct a prison unit. Appropriated funds provided 

herein shall be expended only when authorized by the 

approval board, as provided under Sanate Bill No. 449, 

Fifty-fourth Legislature, Regular Session, consisting of 

the Governor, the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office and the Chairman of the Board of Corrections. 

Acts 1977, 85th Leg., ch. 872, at 2870. 

Your questions are: 

(1) Can the acreage referred to in the rider be 

purchased by the Texas Department of 

Corrections solely from appropriated money, 

without the inclusion of any money from the sale 

of the Blue Ridge Farm? 

(2) Is the language in the rider indicating’that the 

acreage in question is to be located in “West 

Texas” directory or mandatory? 

p. 4690 
Honorable James M. Windham - Page 2 (H-1159) 

(3) If, and only if such language is determined to be 

mandatory, does West Texas include Iiidalgo County? 

The first question is of primary importance since a 1955 statute limits use of 

funds from the &le of the Blue Ridge Farm. That statute provides in part: 

Sec. 3. The proceeds from the sale of [the Blue Ridge 

Farm1 shall be placed in a special fund in the State Treasury 

for use by the Texas Prison Board in purchasing other lands 

for the Texas Prison System within a radius of seventy five 

(75) miles of Huntsville, Texas. . . . 

Acts 1955, 54th Leg., ch. 457, at l178. An appropriation act rider cannot amend a 

statute. Attorney General Opinion V-1254 (1951). Thus, unless the property can be 

purchased with funds other than the proceeds of the sale of Blue Ridge Farm, the 

new acreage must be within seventy-five miles of Huntsville. 

The rider authorizes the Department ‘*to acquire [acreage in West Texas] 

from the proceeds of ,the sale or exchan 

appropriation for prison construction” ‘f 

e of the Blue Ridge Farm, and from the 

emphasis added). Your fZZ question 

requires us to decide whether the “and” can be construed in the disjunctive rather 

than the more usual conjunctive form. The Texas Supreme Court has said: 

Ordinarily the words ‘and’ and ‘or,’ are in no sense interchangeable terms, but, on the contrary, are used in the 

structure of language for purposes entirely variant, the 

,former being strictly of a conjunctive, the latter, of a 

disjunctive, nature. Nevertheless, in order to effectuate the 

intention of the parties to an instrument, a testator, or a 

legislature, as the case may be, the word ‘and’ is sometimes 

construed to mean ‘or.’ This construction, however, is never 

resorted to except for strong reasons and the words should 

never be so construed unless the context favors the 

conversion; as where it must be done in order to effectuate 

the manifest intention of the user; and where not to do so 

would render the meaning ambiguous, or result in an 

absurdity; or would be tantamount to a refusal to~correct a 

mistake. 

Board of Insurance Commissioners of Texas v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Texas, 180 

S.W.2d 908, 908 (Tex. 1944) (quoting 3 C.J.S., And, 1088). 

Here we cannot say that the context and language of the rider requires the 

conversion. In fact, we believe the statutory language suggests that the 

conjunctive use is required. General statutes and appropriations act riders on the 

p. 4691 
Honorable James M. Windham - Page 3 (H-1158) 

Jessen Associates, 

statute specifically 

same subject are & pari materia and must be read together. 

Inc., v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 800 (Tex. 1975). The 1955 

provides that the proceeds from the sale of Blue, Ridge Farm will be used for the 

purchase of new land. The rider to the Appropriation Act aecifically refers to this 

statute and makes the purchase of the new farm conditional on the concurrence of 

the Approval Board which is established in the 1955 statute. The Approval Board’s 

sole functions are set out in the 1955 legislation and are to approve the sale of the 

Blue Ridge Farm and to approve the purchase of new acreage with the proceeds. 

When the rider and the 1955 statute are construed together, as they are required to 

be, the utilization of the Blue Ridge proceeds is mandated. Additionally, the 

budget request submitted by the Texas Department of Corrections to the 

Legislature does not indicate that any general revenue appropriation was requested 

for purchase of land. Compare pages 358 and 358 with pages 2 through 5, Texas 

Department of Corrections Budget Estimates, fiscal years 1978 and 1979 (October, 

1978) . We are thus compelled to conclude that the language of the rider requires 

that the acreage for a new prison farm be purchased with the~proceeds ,from the 

sale of the Blue Ridge Farm and with sufficient general revenue funds to qua1 the 

difference between the cost of the new acreage end the receipts from the Blue 

Ridge property. 

Although the rider refers to purchase of land in West Texas while the statute 

limits the purchase to a seventy-five mile radius of Huntsville, this anomalous 

result does not indicate that the Legislature intended that the purchase was to be 

made solely from general revenue funds. The rider apparently was drafted in the 

anticipation that H.B. 1387 would pass the 85th Legislature. That bill would have 

amended the 1955 legislation ‘relating to the Blue Ridge, Farm to remove the 

seventy-five mile limitation and to alter other provisions relating to the sale of 

Blue Ridge Farm and the purchase of a new farm. That bill was passed by the 

House on May 23, and was passed by the Senate on second reading on May 30,1977; 

however, it was never considered by the Senate on third ‘and final reading. The 

Appropriation Bill, on the other hand, was passed by both houses on May 26, 1977. 

Thus, it is our conclusions that the language of the appropriation riders 

requires that the acreage for a new prison ferm be purchased at least in part with 

proceeds from the sale of the Blue Ridge Farm. Since them use of proceeds from the 

sale of Blue Ridge Farm is limited by statute to the purchase of other lands within 

the seventy-five mile radius of Huntsville, it is unnecessary to address your second 

and third questions. 

SUMMARY 

A rider to the Texas Department of Corrections eppropriation in the Appropriations Act for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 

provides the purchase of acreage for a new prison farm is to 

be made primarily with funds from the sale of the Blue 

p. 4692 
Honorable James M. Windham - Page 4 (H-1158) 

Rldge Farm. Such funds may be used only for the purchase 

of land in a seventy-five milt radius of Huntsville. 

Attcmey General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Commiitee 

M