TEEEA~TORNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUIXVI-IN.TZCKAS 787ll 

January 17, 1974 

The Honorable Joe D. Carter, 

Chairman 

Opinion No. H- 214 

Texas Water Rights Commission 

P. 0. Box 13207. Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 787ll 

Re: Validity and effect of 

allocation of funds appropriated 

to the Water Rights Commission 

to the Neches River Conservation 

District (House Bill 139, Page III156. Item 13) 

Dear Mr. Carter: 

Your opinion request provides the following information: 

“The Commission has authorized me to seek 

your opinion on the following appropriation made:as 

Item 13, page III-156, ~by the 63rd~ Legislature. Regular 

Session,~ 1973, as a part of the appropriations for this 

State agency: 

For allocation to the Neches River Conservation District 

Year ending August 31. 1974. . . $21,740 

Year ending August 31, 1975. . . $21,740 

“On page III-159 is a rider which reads as follows: 

‘The Nechis River Conservation District, 

for whom appropriations are made above, 

&all repay the State of Texas from funds 

received from sources other thanthe State 

of Texas in the amount of the appropriation 

made to the District. ’ ” 

p. 999 
The Honorable Joe D. Carter, page 2 (H-214) 

Concerning this appropriation which is made to the Water Rights Commission 

and not to the District, you first inquire, “Is the appropriation valid as to purpose?” 

It is well settled that ‘I[ elxcept as limited by constitutional provisions, the 

legislative body of the state has absolute control over its finances. . . and it may 

direct and control the disposition of [ state] funds. ” 81.C. J. S. States $132 (1953). 

The Texas Supreme Court considered it a “well-recognized principle of constitutional law” that the legislature may make any law not prohibited by the state or 

federal constitution. Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College District, 363 S. W. 

2d 742, 743 (Tex. 1963). Thus unless contravened by a constitutional provision, 

the appropriation is valid. 

Article 16, $ 59 of the Texas Constitution indicates that: 

“(a) The conservation and development of all of the 

natural resources of this State, including the control, 

storing, preservation and distribution of its storm 

and flood waters, the waters of its rivers and streams, 

for irrigation, power and all other useful purposes, 

the reclamation and irrigation of its arid, semi-arid 

and other lands needing irrigation, the reclamation 

and drainage of its overflowed lands, and other lands 

needing,drainage, the conservation and development 

of its forests, water and hydro-electric power, the 

navigation of its inland and coastal waters, and the 

preservation and conservation of all such natural 

resources of the State are each and all hereby declared 

public rights and duties; and the Legislature shall pass 

all such laws as may be appropriate thereto. ” 

The Neches River Conservation District was created by and functions according to Article 8280-108, V. T. C. S. It is “. . . a governmental agency, body 

politic and corporate, vested with all the authority as such under the Constitution 

and Laws of the State. . . . I’ It is authorized: 

II 

. . . to construct, maintain and operate, in the valleys 

of the Sabine and Neches Rivers and their tributaries, 

p. 1000 
The Honorable Joe D. Carter, page 3 (H-214) 

within or without the boundaries of such district, 

any and all works deemed essential to the operation 

of the district and for its administration in the control, 

storing, preservation and distribution to all useful 

purposes of the waters of the Sabine and Neches Rivers 

and their tributary streams, including the storm and 

flood waters thereof; and such district shall have and 

be recognized to exercise such authority and power 

of control and regulation over such waters of the Sabine 

and Neches Rivers and their tributaries as may be 

exercised by the State of Texas, subject to the provisions 

of the .ConstiMion and the Acts of the Legislature. I’ 

.~.. (Sec. 1, Art. 8280-108 V. T. C.S. ) 

Furthermore, the District is subject to the continuing supervision of the 

Texas Water Rights Commission. Vernon18 Texas Water Code, 5 6.074; 

Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, Art. 8280-108, $15. 

We’assume that the funds in question will be used to advance the statutory 

purpose of the District. As the statutory purpose of the District is declar~ed 

.by the Constitution to be a public duty and as the District is subject to the 

supervision of the State through the Texas Water Rights Commission, we cannot 

say as a matter of law that the expenditure is not for a proper state purpose. 

Article 16. Section 59 of the Texas Constitution prevents the Legislature 

from It. . . [providing] for any indebtedness against any reclamation district 

unless such proposition shall first be submitted to .the qualified property taxpaying voters of such district and the proposftion adopted. ” This provision 

applies only to indebtedness which is to be paid from taxes rather than revenue. 

Austin Mill & Grain Co. v. Brown County Water Improvement District No. 1, 

128 S. W. 2d 829 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1939). -138 S. W. 2d 523 (Teat. 1940). 

As the Neches River Conservation District has no taxing authority, Vernon’s 

Texas Civil Statutes, Art. 8280-108, 5 1, the Legislature is not providing for 

indebtedness against the district in an unconstitutional manner. 

1 

> 

r 

We find no constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of these 

funds or the requirement that they be repaid to the State and thus your first 

question is answered in the affirmative. 

\ 

0; 

p. 1001 
The Honorable Joe D. Carter, page 4 (H-214) 

Your second question is, “Can the Texas Water Rights Commission pay 

the money in a lump sum to the District? ‘I 

Appropriations of this nature are often paid in a lump sum. In Attorney 

General Opinion MS-88 (1953), the Comptroller was allowed to pay a $30, 000 

appropriation to the Sabine River Authority in a lump sum. This appropriation 

was a loan of the same nature as the one in question here. Similarly, Attorney 

General Opinion M-1044 (1972) considered an appropriation providing, “There 

is hereby appropriated $5, 000 out of the General Revenue Fund for the biennium 

beginning September 1, 1971, for all necessary operating expenses in conjunction 

with the operation of Elm Creek Water Control District. ‘I The opinion concluded, 

I, 

. . * that the Legislature intended that the District might receive the full lump 

sum at any time during the biennium for which it was appropriated. ‘I’ A $50, 000 

appropriation to the Red River Authority was authorized as a lump sum by Attorney 

General Opinion WW-1188 (1961). 

There is no language in the appropriations indicating payment in other than 

a lump sum and, therefore, you are advised that lump sum payments are authorized on an annual basis. 

Your third question is, “What administrative documents are needed to 

accomplish the loan and repayment thereof to the State? ” 

In the body of your letter you pose several related questions as follows: 

“Since this has been referred to as a ‘loan’ from the 

State, what security is to be required, what papers 

must be processed and what duties, if any, does this 

Commission have to supervise and service the loan? 

On repayment of the money, under what appropriation 

number will it be deposited into the~State Treasury?” 

You have correctly described the appropriation as “somewhat vague” and we 

have found no specific guides to answer your inquiries. 

The legislature has not provided for a repayment schedule or required security. As there are no specific legislative guidelines for repayment, we believe 

p. 1002 
The Honorable Joe D. Carter, page 5 (H-214) 

the procedure for repayment should be determined by the District and the 

Commission in consultation with the Treasurer, the Comptroller and the State 

Auditor. Any payment schedule or other arrangement agreed to between you 

and the district should be reduced to writing, but no formal documents are 

required. We do not see any provision requiring the district to put up security 

for the loan. The repayments, although it is likely they will be administered 

by the Water Rights Commission, will be to the credit of the State as a whole 

rather than the Commission. 

SUMMARY 

The appropriation to the Texas Water Rights Commission 

for allocation to the Neches River Conservation District .is valid. 

Said appropriations may be paid annually in a lump sum. Repayment 

by the District, as called for in the appropriation, shall be made under 

arrangements to be made between the Commis,sion and. the District 

in consultation with the Treasurer, the Comptroller and the State 

Auditor and the money should be deposited inthe Treasury to the credit 

of the State. 

Attdrney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1003