^. .
The Attorney General of Texas December 29, 1961 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Mike Driscoll~ Opinion No. MW-419 Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12546 Harris County Attorney Austin, TX. 76711 1001 Preston, Suite 634 Re: Authority of a county to 5121475.2501 Houston, Texas 77002 prohibit discharge of sewage Telex 9101874.1367 plant effluent into a county Te,ecc,pIer 51214750266 roadside ditch
1607 Main St.. Suite 1400 Dear Mr. Driscoll: Dallas, TX. 75201 21417428944 You have requested the opinion of this office on the following question: 4624 Alberta Ave., SUite 160 El Paso, TX. 76305 Does Harris County have the authority under law to 913l5333464 prohibit the discharge of sewage plant effluent into a county roadside ditch? 1220 Dallas Ave.. Suite 202 Houston. TX. 77002 You inform us that a privately owned sewage plant is discharging 713165c-m66 sewage effluent into a county roadside ditch without county permission. The Texas Constitution gives the county commissioners courts “such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is 606 Broadway, Suite 312 conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the State, or as may be Lubbock. TX. 76401 8081747.5236 hereafter prescribed.” Art. V, 518. The counties have no powers or duties other than those expressly or impliedly conferred by the constitution and statutes. Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.Zd 451 (Tex. 4(309 N. Tenth. Suite B 1948) ; Attorney General Opinion H-374 (1974). Unlike home rule MeAllen. TX. 76601 cities, counties have no general police power. Comrtissioners’ Court 51218824547 of Harris County v. Kaiser, 23 S.W. 2d 840 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1929, writ ref’d); Harper v. Lindsay, 454 F. Supp. 597 (S.D. Tex. 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 1978). The proper approach is to determine whether the statutes San Anlon~o. TX. 76205 expressiy or by necessary implication provide the requisite authority 5121225-4191 to the commissioners court. Canales v. Laughlin, s.
An Equal OppOrtunityI Article 2351 provides the general statutory grant of power to the Aftirmative Action Employer commissioners courts and specific powers are found elsewhere. V.T.C.S. art. 2351. Neither article 2351 nor any other statute specifically authorizes the county to promulgate any sort of blanket prohibition of all discharges of treated sewage effluent Into county ditches.
The Texas Water Code sets out the authority for the regulation of the discharge of sewage plant effluent and provides that the Texas
p. 1427 . . Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (MW-419)
Department of Water Resources is the administrative agency with regulatory authority over water quality In the state. Water Code, 126.001 et. seq. The Texas Water Coormission is the agency that issues permits for the discharge of waste into or adjacent to water in the state. Id. 26.027. It has been suggested that various Water Code provisionsight authorize a county to regulate discharges into county roadside ditches.
The Water Code provides that a county commissioners court may use the same procedures as the Texas Water Commission in issuing permits to private sewage facilities so as to abate or prevent pollution or injury to public health. Id. $26.032. “Private sewage facilities” is defined by section 26.031x include a number of specific types of sewage facilities “and all other facilities, systems, and methods used for the disposal of sewage other than disposal systems operated under a permit issued by the [Water] [C]ommlssion.” Since the Water Commission has issued a discharge permit for the sewage plant in question, the county may not require a permit under the Water Code.
The Water Code authorizes a local government which owns or operates a disposal system to enact and enforce rules, ordinances, orders, or resolutions to control and regulate the type, character, and quality of waste which may be discharged to the system so as to protect the maintenance personnel and to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the disposal system. Id. 26.176(a). “Disposal system” is defined as any system for disposiKof waste, including sewer systems and treatment facilities. Id. §26.001(16). This provision of the Water Code addresses pretreatment of waste that enters treatment systems and does not cover discharges of treated sewage effluent to county roadside ditches.
Harris County Flood Control District is coterminous with Harris County and is governed by the Harris County Commissioners Court. Acts 1937. 45th Leg., ch. 360, Il. Among the enumerated purposes of the creation of the district is “the control, storing, preservation. and distribution of the storm and flood waters” Id. The district has the power “ to regulate the flow of surface and flood waters.” Id. §§I, 2(e). The Harris County Flood Control District is expressly authorized to pass resolutions establishing building setback lines along any waterway vithin the boundaries of the district. Acts 1963, 58th Leg., ch. 118 at 318. We believe the absence of specific authority to prohibit discharges into drainage ditches lndica.tes that the legislature did not intend the district to have that power. The county commissioners court, through its flood control authority, does not have express or implied authority to prohibit discharges into drainage ditches. Likewise, if the subject property is within a drainage district, there is no statutory authority for the commissioners court to prohibit sewage effluent discharges Into a district’s ditches. -See Tex. Water Code 556.001 et. seq. (1972).
p. 1428 Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (MW-419)
The county has the authority to require abatement of health-related nuisances. V.T.C.S. art. 4477-l. 53. One of the statutorily recognized nuisances is “[a]ny collection of water in which mosquitoes are breeding within the limits of any city, town or village.” 1n your opinion request you state that the pooling condition In this case breeds mosquitoes and is a health hazard. The question of whether the discharge of effluent creates a nuisance is a question of fact. The procedure to be followed in the abatement of health-related nuisances by county health authorities Is set out in the statute. -Id. 53.
In addition to exercising applicable statutory authority, Harris County has the right to prevent interference with its easement. The easement held by Harris County necessarily carries with it the right to use and control as much of the easement as may be reasonably needed for the granted purposes. Hill Farm, Inc. v. Hill County, 436 S.W.Zd 320 (Tex. 1969). The fact that the use contemplated at the time the easement was granted was use as a public road in no way precludes a different use as an avenue of drainage at the present time. Id. at 323. The landowner has the right to use the land subject rthe easement in a manner that does not affect or impair the enjoyment of the public easement. Id. at 323; Hale County v. Davis, 572 S.W.Zd 63, 65 (Tex. Civ. App. -Amarillo 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Pittman v. City of Amarillo, 598 S.W.Zd 941, 944 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.). See also Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 v. Southwell, 32 S.W.Zd 895 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1930, writ ref’d) (district was not entitled to injunctive relief because the dam constructed by the landowner across the drainage ditch in no way interfered with the complete and adequate drainage of water). Whether or not the landowner’s use of the ditch for sewage effluent actually constitutes an encroachment on the county’s easement is again a question of fact.
The issuance of a permit by the Texas Water Commission does not preclude Harris County from pursuing the aforementioned remedies.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
^. .
The Attorney General of Texas December 29, 1961 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Mike Driscoll~ Opinion No. MW-419 Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12546 Harris County Attorney Austin, TX. 76711 1001 Preston, Suite 634 Re: Authority of a county to 5121475.2501 Houston, Texas 77002 prohibit discharge of sewage Telex 9101874.1367 plant effluent into a county Te,ecc,pIer 51214750266 roadside ditch
1607 Main St.. Suite 1400 Dear Mr. Driscoll: Dallas, TX. 75201 21417428944 You have requested the opinion of this office on the following question: 4624 Alberta Ave., SUite 160 El Paso, TX. 76305 Does Harris County have the authority under law to 913l5333464 prohibit the discharge of sewage plant effluent into a county roadside ditch? 1220 Dallas Ave.. Suite 202 Houston. TX. 77002 You inform us that a privately owned sewage plant is discharging 713165c-m66 sewage effluent into a county roadside ditch without county permission. The Texas Constitution gives the county commissioners courts “such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is 606 Broadway, Suite 312 conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the State, or as may be Lubbock. TX. 76401 8081747.5236 hereafter prescribed.” Art. V, 518. The counties have no powers or duties other than those expressly or impliedly conferred by the constitution and statutes. Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.Zd 451 (Tex. 4(309 N. Tenth. Suite B 1948) ; Attorney General Opinion H-374 (1974). Unlike home rule MeAllen. TX. 76601 cities, counties have no general police power. Comrtissioners’ Court 51218824547 of Harris County v. Kaiser, 23 S.W. 2d 840 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1929, writ ref’d); Harper v. Lindsay, 454 F. Supp. 597 (S.D. Tex. 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 1978). The proper approach is to determine whether the statutes San Anlon~o. TX. 76205 expressiy or by necessary implication provide the requisite authority 5121225-4191 to the commissioners court. Canales v. Laughlin, s.
An Equal OppOrtunityI Article 2351 provides the general statutory grant of power to the Aftirmative Action Employer commissioners courts and specific powers are found elsewhere. V.T.C.S. art. 2351. Neither article 2351 nor any other statute specifically authorizes the county to promulgate any sort of blanket prohibition of all discharges of treated sewage effluent Into county ditches.
The Texas Water Code sets out the authority for the regulation of the discharge of sewage plant effluent and provides that the Texas
p. 1427 . . Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (MW-419)
Department of Water Resources is the administrative agency with regulatory authority over water quality In the state. Water Code, 126.001 et. seq. The Texas Water Coormission is the agency that issues permits for the discharge of waste into or adjacent to water in the state. Id. 26.027. It has been suggested that various Water Code provisionsight authorize a county to regulate discharges into county roadside ditches.
The Water Code provides that a county commissioners court may use the same procedures as the Texas Water Commission in issuing permits to private sewage facilities so as to abate or prevent pollution or injury to public health. Id. $26.032. “Private sewage facilities” is defined by section 26.031x include a number of specific types of sewage facilities “and all other facilities, systems, and methods used for the disposal of sewage other than disposal systems operated under a permit issued by the [Water] [C]ommlssion.” Since the Water Commission has issued a discharge permit for the sewage plant in question, the county may not require a permit under the Water Code.
The Water Code authorizes a local government which owns or operates a disposal system to enact and enforce rules, ordinances, orders, or resolutions to control and regulate the type, character, and quality of waste which may be discharged to the system so as to protect the maintenance personnel and to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the disposal system. Id. 26.176(a). “Disposal system” is defined as any system for disposiKof waste, including sewer systems and treatment facilities. Id. §26.001(16). This provision of the Water Code addresses pretreatment of waste that enters treatment systems and does not cover discharges of treated sewage effluent to county roadside ditches.
Harris County Flood Control District is coterminous with Harris County and is governed by the Harris County Commissioners Court. Acts 1937. 45th Leg., ch. 360, Il. Among the enumerated purposes of the creation of the district is “the control, storing, preservation. and distribution of the storm and flood waters” Id. The district has the power “ to regulate the flow of surface and flood waters.” Id. §§I, 2(e). The Harris County Flood Control District is expressly authorized to pass resolutions establishing building setback lines along any waterway vithin the boundaries of the district. Acts 1963, 58th Leg., ch. 118 at 318. We believe the absence of specific authority to prohibit discharges into drainage ditches lndica.tes that the legislature did not intend the district to have that power. The county commissioners court, through its flood control authority, does not have express or implied authority to prohibit discharges into drainage ditches. Likewise, if the subject property is within a drainage district, there is no statutory authority for the commissioners court to prohibit sewage effluent discharges Into a district’s ditches. -See Tex. Water Code 556.001 et. seq. (1972).
p. 1428 Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (MW-419)
The county has the authority to require abatement of health-related nuisances. V.T.C.S. art. 4477-l. 53. One of the statutorily recognized nuisances is “[a]ny collection of water in which mosquitoes are breeding within the limits of any city, town or village.” 1n your opinion request you state that the pooling condition In this case breeds mosquitoes and is a health hazard. The question of whether the discharge of effluent creates a nuisance is a question of fact. The procedure to be followed in the abatement of health-related nuisances by county health authorities Is set out in the statute. -Id. 53.
In addition to exercising applicable statutory authority, Harris County has the right to prevent interference with its easement. The easement held by Harris County necessarily carries with it the right to use and control as much of the easement as may be reasonably needed for the granted purposes. Hill Farm, Inc. v. Hill County, 436 S.W.Zd 320 (Tex. 1969). The fact that the use contemplated at the time the easement was granted was use as a public road in no way precludes a different use as an avenue of drainage at the present time. Id. at 323. The landowner has the right to use the land subject rthe easement in a manner that does not affect or impair the enjoyment of the public easement. Id. at 323; Hale County v. Davis, 572 S.W.Zd 63, 65 (Tex. Civ. App. -Amarillo 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Pittman v. City of Amarillo, 598 S.W.Zd 941, 944 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.). See also Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 v. Southwell, 32 S.W.Zd 895 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1930, writ ref’d) (district was not entitled to injunctive relief because the dam constructed by the landowner across the drainage ditch in no way interfered with the complete and adequate drainage of water). Whether or not the landowner’s use of the ditch for sewage effluent actually constitutes an encroachment on the county’s easement is again a question of fact.
The issuance of a permit by the Texas Water Commission does not preclude Harris County from pursuing the aforementioned remedies. Section 26.133 of the Water Code provides that “[nlothing in this chapter affects the right of any private corporation or individual to pursue any common-law remedy to abate a condition of pollution or other nuisance or to recover damages.” In accordance with section 26.133, a standard provision of water commission permits states that “[t]he issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property. or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights nor any infringement of State, or local laws or regulations; nor does it obviate the necessity of obtaining Federal or local assent required by law for the permitted discharge.” The fact that a discharger has been granted a discharge permit will not defeat an action for damages for the resulting pollution. Atlas Chemical
p. 1429 Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 4 (MW-419)
Industries, Inc. v. Anderson, 514 S.W.Zd 309 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana 1974). aff'd. 524 S.W.Zd 681 (Tex. 1975).
SUMMARY
Harris County has no authority to institute a blanket prohibition of all discharges of sewage plant effluent into county ditches. The county may prevent Interference with its easement through cO*O" law remedies or statutory nuisance abatement proceedings.
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan Plettman Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan L. Garrison, Chairman Jon Bible Tim Brown Rick Gilpin Jim Moellinger Susan Plettman
p. 1430