March 24, 1975

The Honorable Joe Resweber County Attorney Harris County Courthouse Houston, Texas 77002 Opinion No. H- 562 Re: Constitutionality of article 235la-6, V. T. C.S., authorizing **rural** fire prevention districts to provide ambulance services. Dear Mr. Resweber:

You have requested our opinion regarding. the constitutionality ofarticle 235la-6, section 11, subsections 3and 6, V. T.C.S., which deal with certain powers delegated by the Legislature to rural fire prevention districts.

Article 3, section 48-d ofthe Texas Constitution permits the Legislature toprovide for the establishment and creation of rural fire prevention districts and toauthorize atax upon the ad valorem property located therein not the exceed 3Cper $100.00 evaluation. You ask whether this constitutional provision empowers the Legislature toauthorize rural fire prevention districts:

(3) to enter into contracts with any others, including incorporated cities or towns or other districts whereby fire fighting facilities and fire extinguishment services and/or emergency rescue and ambulance services may be available to the district, upon such terms~as the governing body ofthe district shall determine. The contract may provide for reciprocal operation of services and facilities ifthe contracting parties find that such operation would be mutually beneficial, and not detrimental to the district.

p. 2527The Honorable Joe Resweber page 2 (H-562)

(6) tolease, own, maintain, operate and provide emergency ambulance service and all other necessary and proper equipment therewith for the prevention ofloss oflife from fire and other hazards which may result in serious injuries to persons. Initially, we may observe that a strong presumption exists in favor ofthe constitutionality ofany statute, and that doubts are to be resolved in favor of constitutionality. Vernon v. State, 406 S.W. 2d 236 (Tex. Civ. App. --Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r. e.); Smith v. Davis, 426 S.W. 2d 827 (Tex. Sup. 1968). Furthermore, the authority tothe Legislature is plenary, and the extent ofthat authority is limited only by express or implied limitations therein contained in or necessarily arising from the Constitution itself. Government Services Ins. Underwriters v. Jones, 368 S.W. 2d 560 (Tex. Sup. 1963).

Section 48-d does not specify any ofthe functions ofa rural fire prevention district. Itis well established, however, that a grant of power inthe Constitution carries with it by necessary implication the grant ofsuch additional powers as may be necessary to effectuate the purpose ofthe granted power. First National Bank v. Port Arthur, 35 S.W. 2d 258 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1931, nowrit).

Viewed in this light, we think it is clear that the Legislature may authorize rural fire prevention districts to contract for the provision ofservices and facilities. Since aparticular district, because ofa shortage ofmanpower or funding, might not be able to provide necessary services without entering into such agreements, this authority is precisely~the kind which might “effectuate the purpose ofthe granted power. ”

Subsection 6 presents a more difficult question, and its resolution depends upon whether the Legislature could reasonably conclude that the operation ofan emergency ambulance service was a proper function ofa rural fire prevention district. A recent decision upholding the authority ofthe City of Corpus Christi to enter into the operation of apublic ambulance service observed that

p. 2528The Honorable Joe Resweber page 3 (H-562)

[t]he institution ofan emergency ambulance service is.
. . a service kindred to the police or fire service. This type of service is incident to the police power ofthe state: i. e., toprotect thehealth, safety, and general welfare ofits citizens. Ayala v. City of Corpus Christi, 507 S.W. 2d 324, 328 (Tex. Civ. App. --Corpus Christi 1974, no writ hist). InAttorney General Opinion C-759 (1966), this office ruled that ahospital district was authorized to establish an emergency ambulance service. The relevant **statute,** article 4494n, V. T. C.S., provided that ahospital district might operate “hospital facilities and systems for the maintenance ofhospitals

. . . and any and all other facilities and services thehospital district may require
. . . ” From this general grant of power, the Opinion declared, itwas reasonable to

### infer the district’s authority to operate an emergency ambulance service, since such a service, “while not exclusively ahospital service, is sufficiently related tothe effective and efficient operation ofahospital as to be within the authority ofthe Board ofManagers ofthe District toacquire and operate in carrying **out** its duties within the District. ”

Bearing in mind that’s constitutional provision is to be construed liberally and in an equitable manner so as to carry **out** the great principles ofgovernment for the benefit ofpeople. I’[Edwards v. Murphy, 256 S.W. 2d 470 (Tex. Civ. App. --Ft. Worth 1953, writ dismtl); Great Southern Life In8. Co. v. Austin, 243 S.W. 778 (Tex. Sup. 1922& we cannot say thatit is impermissible for the Legislature to conclude that the operation ofan emergency ambulance service was a proper function ofa rural fire prevention district and sufficiently related to the effective operation ofthe district as to be within its authority. ,SUMMARY Subsections 3and 6ofarticle 235Ia-6;section 11, V.T.C.S., are constitutional, and **as a**  **result,** the Legislature may authorize rural fire prevention

p. 2529The Honorable Joe Resweber page 4 (H-562)

districts to provide emergency ambulance service and to enter into contracts for the provision of services and facilities. Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 2530