The Attorney General of Texas 

March 5, 1980 

Honorable Bill M. White 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County Courthouse 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Dear Mr. White: 

Opinion No. MN-144 

Re: Edwards Underground Water 

District Taxing Authority. 

You have requested our opinion on the following three questions: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Does the Edwards Underground Water District 

have the authority to levy taxes in any year in 

an amount less than the statutory rate of two 

cents per one hundred dollars assessed 

valuation? 

If the Edwards Underground Water District has 

the authority to levy taxes in an amount less 

than two cents per one hundred dollars assessed 

valuation, does the District have the authority 

to levy such tax in different amounts in the five 

counties of the District in any one year? 

If the Edwards Underground Water District is 

not authorized to levy taxes in an amount less 

then two cents per one hundred dollars assessed 

valuation, is the District subject to the 

provisions of the Truth in Taxation’ statute, 

TEX. REV. CIVIL STAT. ANN., Article 7244c? 

Legislation creating the Edwards Underground Water District was 

enacted in House Bill 7, Acts 1959, of the 56th Legislature (formerly cited as 

article 8280-219, V.T.C.S.). 

The act provides in section 10, relating to the “Levy and Collection of 

Taxes II that t 

The District . . . Is hereby authorized to levy an 

annual tax in each calendar year upon all property 

subject to District taxation of two cents (2d) on each 

p. 462 
Honorable Bill M. White - Page Two (Mw-144) 

One Hundred Dollars ($100) of assessed valuation based upon the 

valuation of taxable property for county tax purposes m each of the 

county areas within the District; that is, the District shall adopt 

for each county or all of that part of a County in the District, e 

County tax roll and tax valuations for the current year for the 

lands and other taxable property located within each county area. 

Acts 1959, 56th Leg., ch. 99, at 177. (Bmphasis added). 

Section 11 of the act relates to “Voting of Additional Tax,” and permits sn increase in 

the tax rate, providing that 

an election may be held within such county area [within the 

‘D’is’trictl for the purpose of voting upon and authorizing the levy of 

taxes in addition to the two cents (2d) per One Hundred Dollars 

($100) as heremabove provided, but not to exceed sn additional 

annual tax of twenty-three (23d) on the One Hundred Dollars ($100) 

of the County valuations of property subject to District taxation 

within a county area included in the District. Said additional taxes 

may be voted and thereafter collected in one or more county areas, 

whether or not other county areas in the Dtstrtct vote addtttonal 

taxes. (Emphasis added). 

The clear language of section 10 establishes authority for the District to levy sn 

annual tax “of two cents (2d)” on each $100 assessed valuation “based upon the valuation of 

taxable property for county tax purposes in each of the county areas within the 

District; . . .‘I This unequivocal and unqualified language permits no inference that the 

District may levy e tax of either less or more than this fixed amount, unless authority can 

be found elsewhere in the statute. Section 11 underscores the minimum nature of the twocent rate established by section 10, by setting out a procedure for an increase in the 

amount which may be levied, up to an additional 23 cents per $100 assessed valuation. 

In all cases the District is instructed to “adopt for each county or all of that part of 

a county in the District, the County tax roll and tax valuations for the current year for 

the lands and other taxable property located within each county area.” Sec. 10. This 

language in section 10 is equally unequivocal and expresses the intent of the legislature 

that the District be bound by the tax rolls and valuations established in each of the various 

counties which lie wholly or partly within the district. Therefore, the District has no 

discretion to charge varying rates or to adjust valuations within the District for any 

purpose, except as provided in section ll. 

Section 11 allows for disparity only in the rate imposed, and then only in an amount 

“in addition to the two cents (2d). . . as hereinabove provided [in section 101.” Disparity in 

the rates between the counties is permitted if properly approved by the Board of Directors 

of the District and authorized by a properly conducted election within the affected county 

P. 463 
. . 

Honorable Bill M. White - Page Three (Mw-144) 

area within the District, “whether or not other county areas in the District vote additional 

t2XeS.” 

Article 7244c, V.T.C.S., relates to “Increases in effective tax rate by Ial taxing 

unit,” and sets out the procedure for calculating the effective tax rate, the limitations on 

increasing the effective tax rate, the requirement of a public hearing together with the 

notice and procedure for conducting the hearing, and the requirement and method of 

notice of reappraisal. In addition, section 6 of the article &fines a taxing unit affected as 

“a special district . . . that is authorized to impose and is imposing ad valorem taxes on 

property.” 

Clearly, the Edwards Underground Water District comes within this definition, and is 

bound by the notice and hearing requirement imposed by the article when the tax rate is 

effectively increased, because it is required to formally “adopt” its mandated rate and the 

respective counties’ valuations annually, even though the district lacks authority or 

discretion to alter downward either the statutory rate or the county valuations which may 

result in an effective increase in the rate. 

Section 4(d) of article 7244~ states that “The governing body of a taxing unit may 

decrease the official tax rate for the current year at any time.” However the caption of 

section 4 relates it to “adoption of Increased Tax Rate” this language is included for the 

purpose of permitting any affected taxing authority which has discretion to do so, to 

reduce its effective tax rate without the burden of the notice and hearing requirements 

imposed for an increase in the rate. It does not supersede or override the mandatory twocent rate set out in the act creating the district. 

The statutory scheme established for the Edwards Underground Water District by 

the legislature leaves the District with the options only of levying a tax at the two cent 

rate in any given year, based on the assessed valuations of the respective county areas in 

the District, of increasing the rate by following a stated procedure or of levying no tax at 

all throughout the District in e given year. Any alterations or additional options in this 

statutory scheme must be provided by the legislature. 

SUMMARY 

The Edwards Underground Water District does not have authority 

to levy taxes in any year in an amount less than the statutory rate 

of two cents per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. Statutory 

language permitting the District to levy taxes in different amounts 

in the five county areas of the District in any one year pertains 

only to increases in the tax rate above the statutory two cent rate. 

The District is subject to the provisions of the “Truth in Taxation” 

statute, article 7244c, V.T.C.S., even though it lacks authority or 

discretion to alter the rate and valuations to avoid an increase in 

the effective rate. 

P. 464 
Honorable Bill M. White - Page Four (NN-144) 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bob Gammage 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMI’ITEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Bob Gammage 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

Myra McDaniel 

p. 465