THE ATTOIWEYGENEEZAL 

QF TEXAS 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 7SW11 DHAWP‘OHU c:. MAxrrlN 

February 28, 1967 

Mr. Hugh C. Yantls Opinion No. ~-32 

Executive Secretary 

Te;zzrater Pollution Control Re: Construction of Senate 

Bill 204 and House Bill 

1100 West 49th Street 448 of the 60th LeglsAustin, Texas 78756 lature, Identical bills 

which would establish 

a Texas Water Quality 

Board as the successor 

to the Texas Water 

Dear Mr. Yantis: Pollutlon Control Board. 

In view of the provisions of Section 51 of Article III 

of the Constitution of Texas prohibiting grants of public monies 

to any individual, association of Individuals, municipal or other 

corporations, you have asked the following questions relatln to 

the provisions of Senate Bill 204 and House Bl.1~1 448 of the t 0th 

Legislature (identical bills establlshlng the Texas Water Quality 

Board) prescribing its powers, duties, functions and procedures 

and providing for the establishment of quality waters in the State 

and the control, prevention and abatement of pollution: 

"(1) May a grant of State funds be made 

to a governmental entity for construction of 

waste collection, treatment and disposal facllltles 

for water quality control purposes, as provided In 

the proposed Texas Water Quality Act? 

"(2) May a grant of State funds be made to 

a governmental entity for the purpose of planning 

water quality control programs and facilities, as 

provided In the proposed Act? 

"(3) May a loan of State funds be made to a 

governmental entity for the purposes of planning 

water quality control program! and facllltles, as 

provided In the proposed Act? 

Under the provisions of Section 11 of the proposed Act, 

the Board is authorized to make grants to any munlcipallty or 

- 138 - 
m. Hugh c. Yantls, page 2 (M-32) 

Interstate agency 'as such terms,are defined In the Federal Water 

Pollution Ccntrol Act (33 USC 466, et seq.) or to any local government for the construction of necessary treatment works and necessary 

sewer and sewerage systems, treatment systems and disposal systems. 

The Board is further authorized to make grants or Interest-free 

loans to certain planning agencies (governmental agencies) for 

developing an effective comprehensive water quality control abatement plan. Thus, such grants or Interest-free loans of State 

funds to planning agencies are made for governmental purposes 

and are not made for any private purpose. 

Section 51 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas 

provides in part: 

"The Legislature shall have no power to 

make any grant or authorize the making of any 

grant of public moneys to any Individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporations 

whatsoever; . . .'I 

In construing the above quoted provisions it was held In State 

V. city of Austin, 160 Tex. 348, 331 S.W.2d 737, 742 (1960): 

'Here the Legislature has empowered the 

State Highway Commission to construct Interstate 

and defense highways and to direct munlclpalltles 

and utility companies to relocate their facilities. 

That grant of authority is conditioned, however, 

by the requirement that the utilities be reimbursed 

for the expense which they incur. In our opinion 

this does not constitute the release of an .obligation to the state within the meaning of Article III, 

Section 55, of the Constitution. See State ex rel. 

Jones v. Chariton Drainage District No. 1, 252 MO. 

345, 158 S.W. 633. 

"Article 6674w-4 obviously does not involve a 

gift or loan of the credit of the state unless It 

can be said that payment of relocation costs amounts 

to a grant 07 public money in violation of Article 

, Section 51. The purpose of this section and 

of Article XVI Section 6, of the Constitution 1s 

to prevent the'appllcatlon. of public funds to private 

purposes; in other words,, to prevent the gratuitous 

grant of such funds to any individual or corporation 

whatsoever. -- 

6W.2d 738. 

See Byrd.v. city of Dallas, 118 Tex. 28, 

Statutes analogous to House Bill 179 

have been upheld against this or similar constitutional 

- 139 - 
Mr. Hugh C. Yantls, page 3 (M-32) 

attacks by the appellate.courts,,of at least 

five other jurisdictions. . . . 

the C&-<utlon 

Thus, a grant of State funds to a political subdlvlslon 

of the State for governmental use of such money is not prohibited 

by the provisions of Section 51 of Article III of 

of Texas'nor any other provision of our'state Constltutlon. Bexar 

County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S.W. 761 1920); Road.Dlsm 

0. Shelby County V. Allred, 123 Tex. 77, a s.w.2a lb4 (1934) ;. 

Jeffeison County v. Board of County and District Road Indebtedness, 

143 T 99 182 S W 2d 908 l79-44) city 

112 T:;: 334, 247 i.;. 818 (1923).; 

of Aransas Pass v. Keeling, 

. In Bexar County v. Linden, supra, the Court stated In 

construing Section 31 of Article m of the Constitution of Texas: 

"The giving away of public money, its application to other than strictly governmental 

purposes, is wfiat the provision Is intended to 

guard against. 

In Road District No. 4, Shelby County v. Allred, supra, 

the Court at page lb9 held In construing Section 51 of Article III 

of the Constitution of Texas: 

“It Is the settled law of this state that 

the above-quoted constitutional provision is lntended to guard against and prohibit the granting 

or giving away of public money except for strictly 

governmental purposes. The prohibition Is an absolute one, except as to the class exempted therefrom, and operates to prohibit the Legislature from 

making gratuitous donations to all kinds of corporations, private or public, municipal or’polltlcal. 

Bexar County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S.W. 761. 

It is clear from the above that a road ‘district is 

a corporation within the meaning of the above-quoted 

constitutional provision. 

“It Is also the settled law of this state that 

the above-quoted constitutional provision does not 

prevent the appropriation or granting of state funds 

to municipal and political corporations when the 

money Is granted to be used for a governmental purpose. 

Bexar County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S;W. 761; 

City of Aransas Pass v. Keeling, Attorney General, 

112 Tex. 339, 247 S.W. ala, 819. 

"It cannot be doubted that the effect of section 12 of the special law under consideration here 

- 140 - 
- 

Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, page 4 (M-32) 

has effect to make a donation of state funds to 

the road district. If this donation is a mere 

gratuity, It Is prohibited by section 51 of 

article 3, supra. On the other hand, If the 

donation Is made and granted to the road district 

for a governmental purpose, it is not a gratuity 

and not prohibited by such constitutional provision. 

Bexar County v. Linden, supra; City of Ara$sas Pass 

v, Keeling, Attorney General, supra. . . . 

In view of the foregoing, you are advised that the 

Legislature may authorize the grant or the loan of State funds 

to be made to a governmental entity for construction of waste 

collection, treatment and disposal facilities for water qualIt> 

control purposes, and planning water quality control programs 

and facilities as provided in Senate Bill 204 and House Bill 448 

of the 60th Legislature. 

SUMMARY 

The Legislature may authorize the grant or 

the loan of State funds to be made to a governmental entity for construction of waste collection, 

treatment and disposal facilities for water quality 

control purposes, and planning water quality control 

programs and facilities as provided In Senate Bill 

204 and House Bill 448 of>he 60th Legislature. 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman 

Kerns Taylor 

Pat Bailey 

Roger Tyler 

Malcolm Quick 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbl, Jr. 

- 141 -