January 7, 1969 

Honorable Bill Clayton 

Chairman, 

House Interim Water Study Committee 

House Chamber, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion M-330 

Re: Respons1billty on the 

Houston Ship Channel 

for fire, safety, police, 

Dear Mr. Clayton: pollution, etc. 

On behalf of the House Interim Water Study Committee, 

you have re uested our opinion as to what agencies of 

government 4 city, county or navigation district) have responslbility on the Houston ship channel for fire, safety, police, 

pollution, etc. You ask whether these responsibilities 

fall upon the Port Commission, the City of Houston, on Harris 

County, the Coast Guard, or others connected with the operatioflthere. 

A blanket reply cannot be given, because some of the 

channel is within the corporate limits of Houston and some of 

the channel is outside those limits. 

First dlscussed 1s the situation for the part of the 

channel within the corporate limits of Houston. 

The City of Houston Is a home-rule city and 

has all of the powers under the Texas Copstitution 

not prohibited to it by the United States or Texas 

tions or laws. 

Civ. App.), 

Bland vkeC Taylor, 37 S.W.2d 

I 

Tex. d Tex. 39, 67 S.W. 

1934 I. Police and fire regulations or ordinances 

fically provided for by Art. 1175, Vefnonls Civil 

Subdivisions 27-29, inclusive, and Subdivision 19 

by Acts of the 60th Leg., 1967, Chap. 100, page 18 

aa such 

which are 

Constitu- 

.2sg:033 

are speciStatutes, 

(as amended 

i9). By the 

-1622- 
Hon. Bill Clayton, page 2 (M-330) 

express provisions of the general law pertaining to navigation districts, (applicable to the one in Harris County), 

city powers are not diminished by creation of such a navigation district. Art. 8247, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Also 

see Articles 1183 through 1187, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, which 

preempt these powers to the City of Houston. 

It is our opinion that the general fire and police 

powers on and near the Houston Ship Channel are vested in the 

City of Houston and that it can enact such ordinances as would 

otherwise be in consonance with the Constitution and laws 

of Texas and of the United States. Fiy Attorney General 

Opinion M-190, (1968), the navigation district, county, or 

city could jointly or severally abate water pollution; and the 

city or the county can abate air pollution. 

Within the corporate limits of Houston the city has 

jurisdiction ove.r matters of fire, safety, police, pollution, 

etc. Jurisdiction over navigational matters, such as 

pilotage, wharfage and regulation thereof throughout the entire 

area of the channel are confided by law to the Harris CountyHouston Ship Channel Navigation District, This governmental 

agency was first created pursuant to general laws relating to 

formation of a navigation district, and later ratified by 

special acts of the Texas Legislature. Acts 1927, 40th Deg., 

1st C.S., Chapter 97, p. 256; Acts 1957, 55th Leg., R.S., 

Chap. 117, page 241. The district’s powers are strictly 

governmental. For a discussion of the powers of such district, 

see Jones v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, 397 S.W.2d 304, 

(Tex.Civ.App. 19b5, error ref. n.r.e.). 

With regard to that portion of the channel outside the 

corporate limlts of Houston, it becomes necessary to interpret 

Article 8247134, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, as it applies to the 

Harris County-Houston Navigation District. The article nurnorts 

to give navigation districts broad powers over matters of fire, 

safety, and police powers. We interpret the language of 

Section 1 of the article to grant those powers, however, only 

when the district owns, operates and maintains wharves, docks, 

piers, sheds, warehouses and other similar terminal facilities 

not situated within the boundaries of any incorporated city, 

a. Another interpretation could relate the restrictive 

language, i.e., “not situated within the boundaries, etc.” 

to the composition of the district, but we are of the opinion 

that it properly relates to the situs of the terminal 

facilities. Under our interpretation, then, if the district 

does not own or operate terminal facilities at any location 

it does not have any of the powers conferred by Article 8247b-1. 

- 1623- 
Hon. Bill Clayton, Page 3 (M-330) 

The city may not exercise any of those powers with respect 

to any terminal facilities that It might own or operate within 

corporate limits, The district possesses the power conferred by Article 8247b-1 only to the extent of its ownership of terminal facilities outside the city corporate 

limits. 

The County of Harris’ powers extend through the 

Commissioners1 Court only to those powers and duties 

specifically enumerated by the Constitution and Statutes. 

15 Tex.Jur.2d,Counties, Sec. 35, pages 261-63. By statute 

the county can purchase fire trucks and other fire-fighting 

equipment. Idem, page 263, note 9, citing Art, 2351a, 

Art. 2351a-2, Art. 2351a-4; Snellen v. Brazoria County, 

224 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Clv.App. 1949, error ref. n.r.e.). 

The county only exercises governmental functions and has no 

proprietary functions. 15 Tex.Jur.2d, Counties, Sec. 80, 

page 307; Miller v. El Paso County, 136 Tex. 370, 150 

S.W.,2d lOOq1941). It should be noted that the county 

powers are more strictly construed than those zranted to 

incorporated municipalities. Tri-City Fresh Water Supply 

District No. 2 v. Mann, 135 Tex. 280, 142 S W 2d 945 

1940); Stratton v. Commissioners1 Court, lj7’S.W. 1170, 

Tex.Civ.App. 1911, error ref.). It has no generalpolice 

powers, but may enforce state laws in generai, and as a 

local overnment it can abate air or water pollution. 

Art. 4 8 77-5,V.C.S.* Art. 7621d-1, V.C.S; Attorney General 

Opinion M-190 (1966). 

The Coast Guard regulations may provide for any 

regulations as to fire, safety, etc. cognizable under 

federal statutes as an adjunct of the exercise of the 

commerce powers of Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. 

Constitution. One regu’lation of this type is the prohlbitlon 

of arc welding,within fifty feet of the waters of the ship 

channel. 

SUMMARY 

Under a fact situation wherein the Harris 

County-Houston Ship Channel,Navigation 

District does not own or operate any terminal 

facilities within the corporate limits of any 

city, the city has jurisdiction within its limits 

over matters of fire, safety, and police power 

even within the limits of the district. The 

county may enforce within the district all state 

laws. Either the city or the county may bring 

-1624- 
Hon. Bill Clayton, page 4 (M-330) 

suit under the Clean Air Aot of 

Texas, 1967, OP under the Texas 

Water Quality Act of 1967. The 

district may bring suit under the 

latter. The district, pursuant to 

Art. 8247b-1, V.C.S., has jurisdiction over fire, safety, and 

police powers to the extent that 

it owns or operates terminal 

facilities outside the corporate 

limits of any city. 

truly yours, 

%.%G 

C. MARTIN 

rney General of Texas 

Prepared by Roger Tyler 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

Brandon Bickett 

Alfred Walker 

John Grace 

Neil Williams 

Hawthorne Phillips 

Executive Assistant 

-1625