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 

of article 235la-6, section 11, subsections 3 and 6, V. T. C. S., which 

deal with certain powers delegated by the Legislature to rural fire 

prevention districts. 

Article 3, section 48-d of the Texas Constitution permits the 

Legislature to provide for the establishment and creation of rural fire 

prevention districts and to authorize a tax upon the ad valorem property 

located therein not the exceed 3C per $100.00 evaluation. You ask whether 

this constitutional provision empowers the Legislature to authorize 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 of the district shall 

determine. The contract may provide for reciprocal 

operation of services and facilities if the contracting 

parties find that such operation would be mutually 

beneficial, and not detrimental to the district. 

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

(6) to lease, own, maintain, operate and provide 

emergency ambulance service and all other 

necessary and proper equipment therewith for 

the prevention of loss of life from fire and other 

hazards which may result in serious injuries to 

persons. 

Initially, we may observe that a strong presumption exists in 

favor of the constitutionality of any 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 

to the Legislature is plenary, and the extent of that 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 of the functions of a rural fire 

prevention district. It is well established, however, that a grant of 

power in the Constitution carries with it by necessary implication the 

grant of such additional powers as may be necessary to effectuate the 

purpose of the granted power. First National Bank v. Port Arthur, 

35 S. W. 2d 258 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1931, no writ). 

Viewed in this light, we think it is clear that the Legislature 

may authorize rural fire prevention districts to contract for the provision of services and facilities. Since a particular district, because 

of a shortage of manpower 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 of the granted 

power. ” 

Subsection 6 presents a more difficult question, and its resolution depends upon whether the Legislature could reasonably conclude 

that the operation of an emergency ambulance service was a proper 

function of a rural fire prevention district. A recent decision upholding 

the authority of the City of Corpus Christi to enter into the operation of 

a public ambulance service observed that 

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

[t]he institution of an emergency ambulance service 

is. . . a service kindred to the police or fire 

service. This type of service is incident to the 

police power of the state: i. e., to protect the health, 

safety, and general welfare of its citizens. Ayala v. 

City of Corpus Christi, 507 S. W. 2d 324, 328 (Tex. 

Civ. App. --Corpus Christi 1974, no writ hist). 

In Attorney General Opinion C-759 (1966), this office ruled that 

a hospital district was authorized to establish an emergency ambulance 

service. The relevant statute, article 4494n, V. T. C. S., provided that 

a hospital district might operate “hospital facilities and systems for the 

maintenance of hospitals . . . and any and all other facilities and services 

the hospital district may require . . . ” From this general grant of 

power, the Opinion declared, it was reasonable to infer the district’s 

authority to operate an emergency ambulance service, since such a 

service, “while not exclusively a hospital service, is sufficiently related 

to the effective and efficient operation of a hospital as to be within the 

authority of the Board of Managers of the District to acquire 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 

of government for the benefit of people. I’[ Edwards v. Murphy, 256 S. W. 

2d 470 (Tex. Civ. App. --Ft. Worth 1953, writ dismtl); Great Southern 

Life In 8. Co. v. Austin, 243 S. W. 778 (Tex. Sup. 1922& we cannot say 

that it is impermissible for the Legislature to conclude that the operation of an emergency ambulance service was a proper function of a 

rural fire prevention district and sufficiently related to the effective 

operation of the district as to be within its authority. 

,SUMMARY 

Subsections 3 and 6 of article 235Ia-6;section 11, 

V.T.C.S., are constitutional, and as a result, the 

Legislature may authorize rural fire prevention 

p. 2529 
The 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