. 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 ofthe current appropriations bill and the appropriations bill for FY 74and FY 75toamaximum payment of $50,000 for any single grant subject to equal matching by cities or counties for maintenance and clearing ofPublic beaches and to $200,000 total state expenditure? ” Item 20ofthe 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 ofPublic beaches NTE$50,000 for any single grant, subject to equal matching and contingent upon there being noadmission fees charged for entry onto such public beaches 200,000 200,000”

pa 1267The 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 3ofthis Act, an amount hereinafter referred toas the ‘state share, ’ . . . .

“(c) No county or city shall receive as its ‘state share’ a sum greater than two-thirds ofthe 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 thejurisdiction of suchcounties and cities are used. ” It is clear that an auoronriation bill may not be avehicle for amend-

.. . ing or enacting general law. Texas Constitution, Article 3, $35; Moore V. Sheppard, 192S.W. 2d 559 (Tex. 1946). The type ofincidental provisions or riders which may be included in an appropriations bill was ably and exhaustively discussed inAttorney General Opinions V-1253 and V-1254 (1951). Attorney General Opinion V-1254 states at page 8that: “With special regard towhat 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 ofthe Attorney General, we believe the rule may be stated generally as follows: In addition to appropriating money and stipulating the amount, manner, and purpose ofthe various items of expenditure, ageneral 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 ofthe 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 ofthe amount of‘expenditures. The requirement that grants be allocated onafifty-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 ofthe 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 ofarticle 5415d-1, 57(c), and is merely a means of detailing or limiting the use offunds. Therefore, your first question is answered in the affirmative. Your second question was premised onanegative response toyour first question, and it is unnecessary to consider it. SUMMARY The restrictions expressed in the appropriation tothe Parks and Wildlife Department for grants to counties and cities for beach cleaning and maintenance are not invalidated byArticle 5415d-1, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes.


## n Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas

pe 1269The 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