November 3,1970

Hon. JohnAllen, Chairman Opinion No. M-716 Texas Water Resources Study Committee Re: Does awaste water House of Representatives treatment plant qualiP. 0. Box 12236, Capitol Station' fyunder the laws of Austin, Texas this state as a "project" eligible for loans and partial or complete participation of ownership by the state from theWater Dear Sir: Development Fund?
By letter of r-cent date, your Committee has asked our opinion in answer to the following question:

"Does awaste water treatment plant qualify under the laws of this state as a 'project' eligible for loans and partial or complete participation of ownership by the state from theWater Development Fund?"

We are of the opinion that awaste water treatment plant, which isotherwise within the purview of the laws governing the Texas Water Development Board, iswithin the definition of "project" as such term is defined by the Legislature inArticle 8280-9,Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas. Section 2(f) of this statute reads as follows:

"(f) 'Project'means any engineering undertaking orwork for thepurpose of the conservation and development of the surface or subsurface water resources in the State of Texas, including the control, storing, and preservation of its storm and floodwaters and thewaters of its

-3465-Hon. JohnAllen, Chairman, page 2 (M-716)

rivers and streams for all useful and lawful purposes by the acauisition. imwrovement. extenA sion, or construction of dams, reservoirs,

aiid storage projects (including underground storage projects), filtration andwater treatment plants including any system necessary for the transportation ofwater from storage to points of distribution, or from storage to filtration and treatment plants, '

including facilities for transporting water therefrom to wholesale purchasers, by the acguisition, by purchase of rights inunderground water, by the drilling ofwells, or for an ----=$i ormore of such purposes ormet &" (Emphasis added)
Filtration and treatment ofwater can verywell be made an integral part of anywater "project", whether the filtration results inproducing drinking water or in cleaning thewater only sufficiently so as tobe released back into apublic stream, because protection of the purity of thewaters of the State is apublic right and duty under the Conservation Amendment (Art.XVI, Sec. 59, Texas Constitution). Parker v. San Jacinto County W.C.I.D. No. 1, 154Tex. 15, 273 S.W.2d 586 (1954);Hurt v. Cooper, 130 Tex. 433, 110 S.W.2d 896, 904 (1937),stating:

"The statute having defined theword, we are not concerned with its usual meaning....";

Central Power &Light Co. v. State, 165 S.W.2d 920,925 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942, error ref.) wherein theCourt stated:

"The decision in the Standard case is clearly grounded upon theproposition that the Legislature had itself defined what itmeant to imply by the quoted term, and that forpurposes of definition resort may not be had to the general meaning (nor,by parity of reasoning, to any other meaning) of the term...."

-3466-Hon. JohnAllen, Chairman, 'page3 (M-716)

In accord, in other jurisdictions following abroad and liberal meaning as to theword "project", see Lake Ontario Land Development hBeach Protection Association v. F.P.C., 212 F.2d 227 (C.A.Dist. of Col. 1954); Pacific Power & Light Co. v. F.P.C., 184 F.2d 272 (C.A.Dist. of Col. 1950); Garel v. Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, 447 P.2d 209, (Colo.Sup.Ct. 1968).

The Texas Conservation Amendment and laws enacted oursuant thereto such as those relating to the Water Development Board are tobe given abroad and liberal construction. Corzelius v. Harrell, 143Tex. 509, 186 S.W.2d 961 (1945); Clark v. Briscoe, 200 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Civ.App. 1947, no wrrt).

We held inAttorney General Opinion No. M-2 (1967)that theword "project" inArticle 8280-9, supra, should be given
abroad and liberal construction. It canverywell,be said that waste water treatment and the reclaiming of the quality ofwater should be included inmany projects and that such reclamation of thewater might be the only means available to provide an adequate water supply in some areas of Texas. Also, since the Texas Water Rights Commission must certify that "theproject contemplates optimum development of the site of theproject", we are of the opinion some casesmight require that reclamation of the quality ofwaters fromwaste water to ahigher water quality by filtration through waste water treatment plants would, for that reason also, be authorized by law as a "project", or part thereof. Art. 7477, V.C.S., as amended by Art. 8280-9, V.C.S., Sec. 12.

SUMMARY -------

The word "project" as defined inArticle 8280-9, V.C.S., governing the Texas Water Development Hoard, can include awaste water treatment plant either alone, or as apart of a larger eHneering plan.

y General of Texas

-3467-. .-

Hon. JohnAllen, Chairman, page 4 (M-716)

Prepared by Roger Tyler Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE

Kerns Taylor, Chairman W.E. Allen, Co-Chairman

Roland Allen Linward Shivers John Reeves Dunk Sullivan

MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant

ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant

NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-3468-