# 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 offunds 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 onthe following appropriation made:as Item 13, page III-156, ~bythe 63rd~Legislature. Regular Session,~ 1973, as apart ofthe appropriations for this State agency: For allocation tothe 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 inthe amount ofthe appropriation made to the District. ’ ”



### p. 999The 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 topurpose?” Itis well settled that ‘I[elxcept as limited by constitutional provisions, the legislative body ofthe 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 ofthe Texas Constitution indicates that:

“(a) The conservation and development ofall ofthe natural resources ofthis State, including the control, storing, preservation and distribution of its storm andflood 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 ofits forests, water and hydro-electric power, the navigation of its inland and coastal waters, and the preservation and conservation of all such natural resources ofthe 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. Itis “
. . . a governmental agency, body politic and corporate, vested with all the authority as such under the Constitution and Laws ofthe State.
. . .I’ Itis authorized:

II

. . .to construct, maintain and operate, inthe valleys ofthe Sabine and Neches Rivers and their tributaries,

p. 1000The 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 ofthe district and for its administration inthe control, storing, preservation and distribution to all useful purposes ofthe waters ofthe Sabine and Neches Rivers andtheir 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 ofthe Sabine and Neches Rivers and their tributaries as may be exercised by the State of Texas, subject tothe provisions ofthe.ConstiMion and the Acts ofthe Legislature. I’
.~.. (Sec. 1, Art. 8280-108 V. T. C.S. ) Furthermore, the District is subject to the continuing supervision ofthe Texas Water Rights Commission. Vernon18 Texas Water Code, 56.074; Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, Art. 8280-108, $15. We’assume that the funds in question will be used to advance the statutory purpose ofthe District. As the statutory purpose ofthe District is declar~ed .by the Constitution to be apublic duty and as the District is subject to the supervision ofthe State through the Texas Water Rights Commission, we cannot say as amatter oflaw that the expenditure is not for aproper state purpose. Article 16. Section 59 ofthe Texas Constitution prevents the Legislature from It.
. .[providing] for any indebtedness against any reclamation district unless such proposition shall first be submitted to.thequalified property taxpaying voters of such district andthe 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, 128S.W. 2d 829 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1939). -138 S.W. 2d 523 (Teat. 1940). As the Neches River Conservation District has notaxing authority, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, Art. 8280-108, 51, the Legislature is not providing for indebtedness against the district inan unconstitutional manner. 1 > r We find no constitutional prohibition against the appropriation ofthese

funds or the requirement that they be repaid to the State and thus your first question is answered inthe affirmative.

\ 0; p. 1001The Honorable Joe D. Carter, page 4 (H-214)

Your second question is, “Can the Texas Water Rights Commission pay the money inalump sum tothe District? ‘I Appropriations ofthis nature are often paid in alump sum. InAttorney General Opinion MS-88 (1953), the Comptroller was allowed to pay a $30, 000 appropriation tothe Sabine River Authority in alump sum. This appropriation was aloan ofthe same nature as the one inquestion here. Similarly, Attorney General Opinion M-1044 (1972) considered an appropriation providing, “There is hereby appropriated $5, 000 out ofthe General Revenue Fund for the biennium beginning September 1, 1971, for all necessary operating expenses inconjunction 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 itwas appropriated. ‘I’ A $50, 000 appropriation tothe Red River Authority was authorized as alump sum by Attorney General Opinion WW-1188 (1961). There is no language inthe appropriations indicating payment in other than alump sum and, therefore, you are advised that lump sum payments are authorized onan annual basis. Your third question is, “What administrative documents are needed to accomplish the loan and repayment thereof to the State? ” Inthe body ofyour 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, ifany, does this Commission have to supervise and service the loan? On repayment ofthe money, under what appropriation number will itbe deposited into the~State Treasury?” You have correctly described the appropriation as “somewhat vague” andwe 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. 1002The 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 andthe State Auditor. Any payment schedule or other arrangement agreed to between you and the district should be reduced towriting, but no formal documents are required. We do not see any provision requiring the district to putup security for the loan. The repayments, although it is likely they will be administered by the Water Rights Commission, will be to the credit ofthe State as awhole rather than the Commission. SUMMARY

The appropriation to the Texas Water Rights Commission for allocation tothe Neches River Conservation District .is valid. Said appropriations may be paid annually in alump sum. Repayment by the District, as called for inthe appropriation, shall be made under arrangements tobe made between the Commis,sion and.the District in consultation with the Treasurer, the Comptroller and the State Auditor andthe money should be deposited inthe Treasury tothe credit ofthe State.

Attdrney General ofTexas

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 1003