. I 

NEY GENE= 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 

April 4, 1974 

The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison 

Executive Director 

Opinion No. H- 271 

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Dear Mr. Garrison: 

Re: Restrictions on 

appropriation to Parks and 

Wildlife Department for 

grants to cities and counties 

for ‘,beach cleaning and maintenance 

You have asked: 

“Is the Parks and Wildlife Department 

limited by the provisions of the current appropriations bill and the appropriations bill for 

FY 74 and FY 75 to a maximum payment of 

$50,000 for any single grant subject to equal 

matching by cities or counties for maintenance 

and clearing of Public beaches and to $200,000 

total state expenditure? ” 

Item 20 of the appropriation for the Parks and Wildlife Department 

(Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 1786, at 2007) provides: 

“20. For payment to cities and 1974 1975 

counties for maintenance and 

cleaning of Public beaches 

NTE$50,000 for any single 

grant, subject to equal matching and contingent upon there 

being no admission fees 

charged for entry onto such 

public beaches 200,000 200,000” 

pa 1267 
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (H-271) 

Article 5415d-1, $ 7, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, provides in 

part: 

“Sec. 7. (a) From the appropriation available 

therefor, the Parks and Wildlife Department shall 

from time to time pay to each county or city which 

has its application approved under Section 3 of this 

Act, an amount hereinafter referred to as the ‘state 

share, ’ . . . . 

“(c) No county or city shall receive as its ‘state 

share’ a sum greater than two-thirds of the amount 

such county or city expends for the purpose of cleaning and maintaining public beaches within its jurisdiction during the state fiscal year for which reimbursement is sought. The Department shall allocate the 

‘state share’ to eligible counties and cities, taking 

into account the frequency with which public beaches 

within the jurisdiction of such counties and cities are 

used. ” 

It is clear that an auoronriation bill may not be a vehicle for amend- 

. . . 

ing or enacting general law. Texas Constitution, Article 3, $35; Moore 

V. Sheppard, 192 S. W. 2d 559 (Tex. 1946). The type of incidental provisions 

or riders which may be included in an appropriations bill was ably and 

exhaustively discussed in Attorney General Opinions V-1253 and V-1254 

(1951). Attorney General Opinion V-1254 states at page 8 that: 

“With special regard to what incidental provisions 

may be included within a general appropriation bill, our 

Texas courts have not stated a general rule. However, 

from statements as to what may not be included and from 

numerous opinions of the Attorney General, we believe the 

rule may be stated generally as follows: In addition to 

appropriating money and stipulating the amount, manner, 

and purpose of the various items of expenditure, a general 

appropriation bill may contain any provisions or riders 

p. 1268 
. - 

The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (H-2’71) 

which detail, limit, or restrict the use of the funds 

or otherwise insure that the money is spent for the 

required activity for which it is therein appropriated, 

if the provisions or riders are necessarily connected 

with and incidental to the appropriati,on and use of ~the 

funds, and provided they do not conflict with general 

legislation. ” 

The $200,000 limit on state expenditures for beach cleaning grants 

and the $50,000 maximum payment to any single grantee-are clearly 

permissible limits of the amount of ‘expenditures. The requirement that 

grants be allocated on a fifty-fifty matching basis does not conflict with 

the statutory mandate that “no county or city shall receive as its ‘state 

share’ a sum greater than two-thirds of the amount such county or city 

expends for the purpose of cleaning and maintaining public beaches. . . . ” 

The restriction contained in the Appropriations Act clearly is consistent 

with this language of article 5415d-1, 5 7(c), and is merely a means of 

detailing or limiting the use of funds. 

Therefore, your first question is answered in the affirmative. 

Your second question was premised on a negative response to your first 

question, and it is unnecessary to consider it. 

SUMMARY 

The restrictions expressed in the appropriation 

to the Parks and Wildlife Department for grants to 

counties and cities for beach cleaning and maintenance 

are not invalidated by Article 5415d-1, Vernon’s Texas 

Civil Statutes. 

n 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

pe 1269 
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 4 (H-271) 

ED: 

h 

v--T\/- q 

LAR .’ YOR , %irst ssistant 

%A 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chai man 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1270