November 3, 1970 

Hon. John Allen, Chairman Opinion No. M-716 

Texas Water Resources Study 

Committee Re: Does a waste water 

House of Representatives treatment plant qualiP. 0. Box 12236, Capitol Station' fy under the laws of 

Austin, Texas this state as a "project" eligible for 

loans and partial or 

complete participation 

of ownership by the 

state from the Water 

Dear Sir: Development Fund? 

By letter of r-cent date, your Committee has asked our 

opinion in answer to the following question: 

"Does a waste 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 the Water 

Development Fund?" 

We are of the opinion that a waste water treatment plant, 

which is otherwise within the purview of the laws governing 

the Texas Water Development Board, is within the definition of 

"project" as such term is defined by the Legislature in Article 

8280-9, Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas. Section 2(f) of this 

statute reads as follows: 

"(f) 'Project' means any engineering 

undertaking or work for the purpose 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 the waters of its 

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

rivers and streams for all useful and lawful purposes by the 

acauisition. imwrovement. A extension, or construction of dams, 

reservoirs, aiid 

storage projects (including 

underground storage projects), 

filtration and water treatment 

plants including any system 

necessary for the transportation 

of water 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 

in underground water, by the 

drilling of wells, or for an 

or more of such purposes ----=$i or met 

&" (Emphasis added) 

Filtration and treatment of water can very well be 

made an integral part of any water "project", whether the 

filtration results in producing drinking water or in cleaning the water only sufficiently so as to be released back 

into a public stream, because protection of the purity of 

the waters of the State is a public right and duty under 

the Conservation Amendment (Art. XVI, Sec. 59, Texas Constitution). Parker v. San Jacinto County W.C.I.D. No. 1, 

154 Tex. 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 the word, 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 the Court stated: 

"The decision in the Standard case is clearly 

grounded upon the proposition that the Legislature had itself defined what it meant to imply 

by the quoted term, and that for purposes 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. John Allen, Chairman, 'page 3 (M-716) 

In accord, in other jurisdictions following a broad and 

liberal meaning as to the word "project", see Lake Ontario 

Land Development h Beach 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 to be given a broad and liberal construction. 

Corzelius v. Harrell, 143 Tex. 509, 186 S.W.2d 961 (1945); 

Clark v. Briscoe, 200 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Civ.App. 1947, no 

wrrt). 

We held in Attorney General Opinion No. M-2 (1967) that 

the word "project" in Article 8280-9, supra, should be given 

a broad and liberal construction. It can very well,be said 

that waste water treatment and the reclaiming of the quality 

of water should be included in many projects and that such 

reclamation of the water 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 "the project contemplates optimum development of the 

site of the project", we are of the opinion some cases might 

require that reclamation of the quality of waters from waste 

water to a higher 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 in Article 

8280-9, V.C.S., governing the Texas Water 

Development Hoard, can include a waste 

water treatment plant either alone, or as 

a part of a larger eHneering plan. 

y General of Texas 

-3467- 
. .- 

Hon. John Allen, 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-