Board of Water Engineers opinionlo. O-1392 Austin, Texas Re: Whether or not certainstudy Attentionof Mr. A. H. Dunlap to be made in connectionwith Red Bluff Water Power Control Districtconstitutes"State business"directlyconcerning State Board of Water Engineers; and, whether or not it will bs necessaryfor the Board to ob- tain an opinionfrom the Attor- ney Gsneralapprovingeach trip ma& outsideof the State of Texas in connectionwith such Gentlemen: study.
We have your letterof the fifth of Septembercontainingtwo questionsto be answeredby this department.
The facts given for our consideration are as follows:
"Throughthe agenciesof the NationalResourcesCommittee, and the U. S. GeologicalSurvey, the U. S. Departmentof Agriculture, t:.eFederalReclamationBureau,and the U. S. Army Corps, in coopera- tion with the States of Texas end New Mexico,a detailedand scientific study and report is under way coveringthe water resourcesof the Pecos River and tributariesfrom the source of said River in New Mexico to its mouth in Texas.
"Thisstudy and report covers:
(a) Salinityof water and sourcesof inflowof salt. (b) Water resources--quantity and quality. (c) Dosses of water and means of prevention. [di pe of water and protectionof water supply. ources,quantityand developmentof groundwater. (g) Flood damage. (g) The consumationof a Compactbetweenthe States of Texas and New Mexico for the divisionof the waters of the Pecce River. (h) Study of development~offarm areas along the river valley by means of pumpingwater fromwells. (i) Rectificationof sub-irrigation of town of Pecos City Board of Water Bngineers,pega 2 (O-1352)
causedby escapeof water from artesianwells.
"The 46th LegislatureenactedS. B. Bo. 49, appropriatingthe sum of $30,000.00for the use of the Red Bluff Water Power Control District. These funds are being used, exclusively,for the purposeof payingTexas' part of the cost of making said study and report. However, it is contemplet@%thatpart, if not all, of the writer'stravelingax- pulses,and that of his assistantshall be paid from the appropriation made availableto the Stats Board of Water Engineers.
'The very nature of the work, requiresthat investigationsbe made in both Wew Mexico and Texas,requiringthose engaged in the study to go back and forth between these two States. To require the writer and his assistantto obtainan opinionfrom your Departmentcoveringeach trip into New Mexicowould be very inconvenient and aausc considerable delay in completingthe fieldwork."
In connectionwith the above fact6, you ask two questions:
(1) whether or not travelingexpensesincurredby a member, of the State Board of Water Engineersand an srsiatantoutsideof the boundarieeof Texas in connectionwith a joint study and report on the Pecoa River and tributaries,is for State businessdirectlyconcerning the State Board of Water Engineers;
(2) "Whethersaid umber and his assistantwill be reQuired to obtainan opinionfrom your Departmentcoveringeach trip made out- side of Texas in connectionwith said study, under the provisionsof paragraph(c), of paragraphheaded 'TravelingExpenses'of'section2 of S. B.No. 421"
Your first questiondividesitself into two parts, first, as to whether the trip contemplated by you is "statebusiness"and second,whether it "directlyconcernsthe State Board of Water Engineers."
In our opinion,the businessproposedto be transactedby your member and an assistantas outlinedin your letter,is such businessas would naturallyarise out of the performanceof the public dutiesrecog- nized by the Constitutionof Texas,Article 59, Sec.