THEA BRNE 

Ron. v. c. Marshall 

Executive Director 

Texas State Soil 

Conservation Board 

Temple, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

September 12, 

Opinion 

1950 

NO. v-1106. 

Re: Availability of funds 

granted to a soil conservation district by H.B. 

97, Acts 5lst Leg., R.S. 

1949, ch. $0, p. 1000, 

for payment of premiums 

on surety bonds of the 

district's employees and 

officers who are entrusted 

with funds or property. 

Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows: 

nWe desire the opinion of your office regarding the legality of payment of bond premiums 

by Soil Conservation District Supervisors out 

of funds provided in House Bill 97, Acts of 

the 51st Legislature, Regular Session 1949. 

"We are advised that some district supervisors 

have paid bond premiums out of state grants to 

the district and other supervisors question 

such authority. Soil Conservation Districts 

have had no grants of funds other than those 

received as provided in House Bill 97. 

"It is the feeling of this board that since 

House Bill 97 requires that any member of the 

board or its employees entrusted with property 

or funds be bonded In an amount fixed by the 

board, that unless there is some prohibition 

elsewhere of which we have no knowledge, that 

to provide proper safeguard for state funds 

supervisors should use any available funds to 

pay for the bond protection required. 

"State Warrants, as such, are not Involved here 

as House Bill 97 provides that checks drawn on 
. . . 

Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 2 (~-1106) 

the depository of the district, signed by the 

chairman and secretary of the board, are to be 

used in meeting obligations of the district. 

“It seems that House Bill 97 neither authorfzes 

nor prohibits the payment of required bond 

premiums from the funds granted to the dfstrict, 

but does require that such bond be procured.” 

Soil conservation districts created under the provisions of Article 165a-4, VernonIs civil Statutes, are 

political subdivisions of the State, bodies politic and COPporate performing governmental functions. Atty. Gen. Op. 

v-999 11950). Section 6 of this statute provides for the 

election of five (5) supervisors in each district who shall 

constitute the governing board of the district; directs the 

board to elect from its membership a chairman, vice-chairman, 

and secretary; and empmers the board to employ such officers, 

agents, and employees, permanent and temporary, as it may require, and shall determine their qualifications, duties, and 

compensation. This section also provfdes: 

“The supervisors shall provide for the execution of surety bonds for all employees and officers who shall be entrusted with funds OP property. n 

House Bill 97, Acts 51st Leg., ROS, 1949, chO 540, 

p* 1000, grants to the soil conservation districts of this 

State the sum of $2,5OO,OOO for each year of the current bfennfum, subject to certain restrictions on the expendfture thereof. The money so granted and appropriated to such dfstrfcts 

was undoubtedly for the purpose of enabling them as polltfeal 

subdivisions of the State, bodfes polPtic and corporate, and 

as agencies of the State to perform the governmental functions 

authorized by Article 165a-4. 

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the approprfatfon bfll 

under consideration provide, respectfvely, as follows: 

Sec. 1. “All grants to soil conservatfon 

districts shall be made by the State Soil Conservation Board based on the Board’s determination 

of equity and need of the distrfct applying for 

grant 0 n 

-. 
_- Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 3 (V-1106) 

Sec. 2. "Approval of all grants to soil 

conservation districts as provided for in this 

Act shall be certified to the State Comptroller 

of Public Accounts by the State Soil Conservation Board. Such certification of approval by 

the State Soil Conservation Board presented to 

the said Comptroller shall be sufficient authority for the Comptroller to issue his warrant 

against any appropriation made for grants to 

soil conservation districts, and shall also be 

sufficient authority for the State Treasurer to 

honor payment of such warrants." 

Sec. 3. "An annual audit of the accounts 

of receipts and disbursements together with an 

inventory of supplies and equipment of all districts receiving grants, as is provided in this 

Act, shall be made by the State Auditor and efficiency expert. A maximum fee for the auditing 

of the accounts of a district shall be set up by 

the State Auditor and efficiency expert bearing 

as nearly as possible the actual expense incurred 

in making such audits. The expense of the audit 

shall be paid by each soil conservation district 

involved out of local fw 

audits shall be made available 

A report of such 

to the Governor 

of the State, to the State Soil Conservation Board, 

and the Members of the Legislature." 

Sec. 4. "The supervisors of soil conservation districts shall-provide for the execution 

of surety bonds for all employees and officers 

sec. 6. "Grants to soil conservation districts as provided in this Act, when received by 

the district, shall be deposited in the name of 

the district; such deposit shall be with a State 

or National bank or banks. Any withdrawal of such 

funds so deposited to the credit of the district 

may be withdrawn only on approval of the board of 

supervisors of the district. All checks or orders 

for such withdrawal shall be signed by the chairman and secretary of the board of supervisors of 

the district." 
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 4 (v-1106) 

We have been informed by the State Comptroller 

of Public Accounts that each soil conservation district 

whose application for a grant had been approved and certffied to him by the State Soil Conservation Board had been 

issued a warrant on the State Treasury for the amount so 

certified. We presume the governing board of each such 

district has deposited the amount so received in some bank 

or banks to its credit in compliance with the provisions 

of Section 6. 

Before we can answer your question it must first 

be determined whether the statute or House Bill 97 makes 

the payment of premiums on such surety bonds the responsibility of the districts. 

It will be observed that both Section 6 of the 

statute and Section 4 of House Bill 97 provfde: 

“The supervisors shall provide for the 

execution of surety bonds m all employees 

and officers who shall be entrusted with funds 

or property.” (Emphasis added.) 

This language does not provide for the execution 

of surety bonds & such employees and officers, but does 

provide : “The supervisors shall provfde for the execution 

of surety bonds w all employees and officers who shall be 

entrusted with funds or property.” (Emphasfs added.) The 

usual and ordinary meaning of the verb “provfde” is “to sup- 

: . 

tz or,,furnlsh.” 34 Words and Phrasea, (Perm. Ed, 1940-j 

The power to rovide includes the power to purchase.” 

Dancv v. Davw 

ror ref.). 

1 is 3 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Civ, App. 1944, erThe p;eposition “for” has several meanings ) fneluding “on account of;N “in favor of;” ‘in behalf of.” 

Webster’s New International Dictionary, (2d Ed.) 1938. The 

Legislature is presumed to have intended that the words 

“provide” and “for” be given their usual and ordinary meanlng . Therefore, it has required the governing board of each 

soil conservation district to supply or furnish surety bonds 

for its employees and officers who shall be entrusted with 

funds or property and to pay the premiums thereon, 

Having reached the conclusion that Payment of Premiums on surety bonds provided by a district for a certafn 

class of Its employees and officers is the responsfbilfty of 

the district it becomes necessary to determine whether such 

premiums may be paid out of the money granted to the district 

by House Bill 97. 
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 5 (v-1106) 

Section 7 of the statute and Subsection F, Section 

4 of House Bill 97 each specifically authorize the governing 

board of a soil conservation district "to accept donations, 

gifts, and contributions In money . . . from this State or 

any of its agencies, and to use or expend such monies. . . 

or other contributions in carrying on its operations." 

Section 3 of House Bill 97 specifically provides 

that each district shall pay out of its local fa the actual expenses incurred by the State Auditor in making an annual audit of the district. This provision clearly prohibits 

a district from paying such expenses out of the money granted 

to it by the State. Section 4 of House Bill 97 requires the 

governing board of each district to provide surety bonds for 

all of its employees and officers who shall be entrusted with 

funds or property, but does not provide that the premiums on 

such bonds shall be paid out of "local funds" of the district. 

Since the Legislature did not provide in Section 4 

that premiums on surety bonds should be paid by each district 

out of its local funds, and since we have found no provision 

in the statute or in House Bill 97 requiring the payment of 

such premiums out of any particular fund, we think it necessarily follows that the money granted to each district by 

House Bill 97 may be used for the payment of premiums on such 

surety bonds. 

SUMUARY 

The governing boards of soil conservation districts may pay premiums on surety bonds provided by 

them "for all employees and officers who shall be 

entrusted with funds or property" out of funds 

granted to the districts by House Bill 97. (Acts 

5lst Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 540, pa 1000). 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: PRICE DAMIEL 

Attorney General 

C.K. Richards 

Trial &Appellate Division 

Everett Hutchinson 

B+=-W~--cg 

BY 

Executive Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Bruce W. Bryant 

Assistant 

BWB:wb