Case Information
*1 i . .
The Attorney General of Texas November 5. I984 JIM MAlTOX
lttorney General NonorAble Lloyd Doggsrt Opinion No. JX-226 -upmeme cowl BulldIng ChAirmEn 0.80x 12sB Subcodttee on ConAm6r AffAirr Be: Whether Article 1175. 6ec- Al”. lx. n711. zE4B 512l47525Dl Texnr, Store Senate tion 19, V.T.C.S., authorize6 -elex B1074.1367 P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station A home rule city to adopt And IocOpl*r 512l475-0255 Auatinr Ta.6 enforce regulatloa6 which Arc
.pplicAble outnide city limit6 ‘14 J6ckmm. Suit. 700 and vhich provide 6tandarde for Iah*. TX. 75202-4505 Eafe 6torAge of hArardou6 .14i74269*4 materf.16 over vater6hedA in end Eurrouuding the how rule city 624 AlBwl~ Ave., stdt* 15D il Pus. TX. 29905-1793 01- Dear SeUetor Doggatt:
You o6k vhether rection 19 of Article 1175. V.T.C.S., Authorize6
lull 1oxar. Suit* 700 - _ . _. __ . _ tD aaopt regUlAtlOne, A hom6 Nle city AppllCAbl6 OUtEiOC Of City nouatotl. lx. 77w24111 IbitE, vhich 6et ,mtAndArd6 6ofc 6torAge of harardou6 ‘lY22WBW Psterial6 the vatc~rrhedo in And 6urrounding the home rule city. We conclude (1) IL home ~16 city may define a6 a nuleance m 8roAdw*y. Suit. 312 6tOrege of hat.rdow EubntAncer ne.r it6 Voter Aupply vhen it h.6 A .ubtwcL TX. 7B4Q1-3419 vell-founded Appreh~ur6lon dongcr from ruch Ator6ge within it6 lW747.5238 And municipal thou6and it. boundaries, And limit6 feet thAt A home ni1.e city, ny (2) promulgate 6tandArd6 the safe IXS N. Tenth. Suit. 8 6tOrAge tierdow rater-6upply mEtErid to prevent kN6n, TX 7B!m.lBd5 the vater6hedr within the home Nle city’6 extrAterritoriAl juri6- 5t2mB24.47 diction. loo Ydll Pm., Suit. 460 1175 Q@AEi6e6 th.t hom6 Nle Citi66 ah.11 hAV6 “full son Alltolllo. TX. ma32797 pover loul ate If -government" And enumerate6. “for greater 512R2s4101 certainty ,” p8rtiCUhr pU”Er6 pO66e66ed by hOme Nle Cities. 1175 pr~wide6 a6 follow:
19 of article An Equal OpcmtunltW Attlmutm ActIon EFPlOve- Each ci.ty 6h.11 have the pover to define all
uuieAnce6 end prohibit the 6ame within and outaid; the city lioit6 for A distance of five thousand f;et; to have paver to police All park6 or ground6;TAkecl And laud contiguous thereto And u6ed 1:. connection therevith, 6peedvaps. or boulevArd6 Novned by 6Aid city And lying outride of the pollution of 6x1~ said city; to prohibit 6tre.m. dmin or tributnrle6 thereof, vhich msy l our ca of VAter 6upply of Any cite conetitutezthe *2 (JM-226) Honoroble Lloyd Doggett - Purge 2
And to proVid6 for policing the 6omc 06 Veil a6 to provide for tha p;otcction of Any vater rhedr And the policing iom6; inspect doirie6, 61.6u- ghter pens And 6iiGtcr hou666 inride or outnide the limit6 of the Icity, from which meat or milk is furni6hed to the inhabitAnt of the city.
(Emph~clir added). Two clou6es *re rclevcmt to your quertion: the paver to define nui6onc66 and the povcr to prohibit voter 6upply pollution. Your the nature there pover6. on vhether request center6 on interpret:lng any other provleion6 h&c preempted the povere, And on vhether omi66ion of “inride or outel~ic the limit6 of the city” from the above- quoted And underecored clms~s vhich d6.16 vith pollution prevention to vithin A home rule city’6 boundarie6. Any v&y limits such control XI, eection 5 Of T6X.6 COnEtitUtiOn granted brood pover6 self-government to citleo qualifying “home rule.” Within their boundarler, hcme rule cities derive their paver from the constitution rather th6n f:rom legi6lation. See Lover Colorado River Authority v. City of San fiwco6. 523 S.W.Zd 6T. 643 (Tex. 1975). Ao result, scope of thei;Ecr vithin their boundari66 depends not grontr of paver but upon expre66 or clearly upon legialotive implied limitation6 in the constitution. in the general 1.~6. and In indivi- du61 city charters. Lover Colorado R&r Authority-v. City of Son Muc0l). s. The prGG$i:ion in favor of home rule clti66’~ pover6 their boundarle6 0160 affect6 interpretorion of their extro- tarritorial pover6.
A home Nl6 city mulIt have expre66 or neC666Arily implied t0 UerCiEe paver outaide it6 bound.srle6. 6tAtUtOry Authority City of Auetin v. Jnmail. 662 S.V.21~ 779, 782 (Tex. App. - AuEtin 1983. writ VeceTrudgillv., 275 S.W.Zd 658. 662-63 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1954)n for reheering); Royel Crest, Inc. v. City of San motion 520 S.W.Zd 058. 86,b-65 - Son Antonio 1975, Antonio, (Tex. Civ. App.
vrit ref’d n.r.e.). ChC6 such power exist6, hovever. any limits on it6 cxerciee mu6t appear v:.th “unni6t8~ble clarity." City of Corpus Inc., 445 S.V.2d 12, 17 (Tex. Civ. Chri6ti v. Continental Du6 Sgrteme.
APP . - AuEtin 1969, vrit ;efTo.r.c.) per curium. S.V.Zd 470 (Tut. 1970); 6ee. . .* (G.5’ o;ivy;E 1’ ~y!&yg’&y&-~; Inc., S.W. d 23
n.r.e.1; Cameron v. City of WACO. 8 F.W.2d 249 (Ter. Civ. App. - WACO -- 1928, no vrit). ortic 1175 doe6 not by It6 term6 limit voter prevention to vit’hin A home Nit City’6 boundaries merely
because of the omission of the words “inside or outside the limits city.” StAtutt6 mmt be COuEtNed 06 whole and one PrOViSiOn vi11 not be given a meanings out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions even if prwi6loa might be EUECtptiblt to such con- 6tNCtiOn if 6tanding oloue. We6t Lake Hills v. Westwood Legal Defense Fund, 598 S.U.Zd 681 (Tex. Civ. App. - WACO 1980. no *3 Noaoroble Lloyd Doggett - PAge 3 (Jn-226) ; l ee Merchant6 F&Et Mo.:or Line6, Inc. v. kailroAd CodEriOn vrit) of regard to the other S.W.Zd 502 (T& With
m, enumerated pouera, 6ection I,9 expr666lY provide6 for their eXerCiAe outride the city fimitr. TItu6, the over611 import Of 6rtiCle 1175, the l x er ci6e of p6rticulAr prov:lde 66CtiOn t0 19. itI extrat6rritoriAl pover6. 1176 further cl6rifi66 the effect of Article 1173 by that
providing
[tJhe enumeration of power6 hereilubova m6de rhall never be ConEtrued to pr6ClUdA. by implication or otherwi6e. Any 6lN:h City frW the 6XEtCiEing power6 incident to the anjoymant loco1 Eelf- government, provided that ouch povcrr ah.11 not be inhibit6d by the Stats Con6titution.
Thur, the OmiAaion of “inrid,E or out6ide the limit6 Of the City” from the vater pollution-prevvcntion clau6e of rection 19 doe6 not limit l XerCl6e Of 6uch pover to vithin A home Nl6 City’6 boundorier. v6t6r pollution
To the ContrArY, prevention power6 Are not neC666Arily limitcd t0 five thourond feet. The court in Treodgill v. S.W.Zd t 661,
m, iodicoted in dicta that the omia6ion of the in6lde or outaide 1anguAge w.6 intcndad t0 AuthOri VAter 6Upp17 from pollution prevention "vithout llmit 06 to .diEtAnce rcfer,a to both nuirance-defining And water liEtit6." prcvention; thu6, th.t polhtion Of A public Voter giV66 durae la A public nulMnce, Gold6mith 6 Pwell v. State. S.W.Zd and o66umin8 534 (Tc Civ. ADO. - D.11.1, 1942. writ ref’d), cl&e ir not 6uperfluou6. IOM AdditIonAl pouer VAE intendid. f+-rY provieion vi11 effect, if pO66ible. legi6lotivc te given Life Insurance Company Amc_rico v. Work. 77 S.U.Zd 1036 (Tex. 1934 . T con xt6nd
Neverthele66, votcrshedr of 6ome VAterCourAe6 hundred6 of mile6, And how Nle Citi66’ general pOliC6 pOWEra. t0 promote and protect gctrr!rd hulth. Eofety, And velfore of the people, have not been cxtecided beyond their utrotrrritori.1 jurie- by :tiuu diction AA e6tAbliEhed 3 of Article 9700, V.T.C.S. Thu6.
vhen taken togethcr. Article6 1175 And 97th authorize horn6 rule city to dcfina nuiaonces And to prevent vAt6r 6upply pollution it6 ita boundarier. fact bOUndOr And vithin thourond And, Addi- t10uA11y. prevent p01.1.uti0n ita voter it6 6UPP lY extrotarritorial juri6dicticn vherc ouch jurirdiction i6 greAter than thourond fiV6 feet. QueEtions remain about: the nature of eactioa 19 povera: (1) they ncompaaa
whether regulating the 6ofe storage df hatArdou6 materialo, And (2) whether Any other con6titutional ot Etotutory provi6ionA. vith “UC”d6tAti3~l6 ClArity." limit the nuisance-defining and voter pollution prevent:.on clAuae6 of rection 19. Preliminary deciding the latter questioa, vhether either pov6r has been superseded
Honorable Lloyd DoSSett - P,aSe 4 (JM-226) povera
or preempted, l basic of la necessary. undcntendiag Becauoe pollutiou of a pu,:Lic vatercourse is a nuisance. Goldsmith 6 v. State. m, Both pavers Povell the! povera overlap considerably.
encompaaa regulating the safe atorage of hazardous uateriala in the vateraheda surrounding A home rule city.
Absent CxDress Authority. _ - A city cannot declare that A subject of in a nuisance VlhAU it regulation is not a0 per se or at come& law. 247 S.U. 810, 812 (Tex. 1923).
Croasuan v. City of Galveston, 19. xurea.?F 1175. section authorizes houe cities to define nuisincea -their boundaries and vithln thousand feet of their boundaries. Treadgill v. State, 275 S.W.2d At 661; Stoughton V. Port Worth. 277 S,W.2d 150 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1955. v. State, 627 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. App. - Fort
no vrit); see also Vlanello Worth 1982, oo pet~~ker, even with express authority, A city a particular that cannot ACt arbitrarily AII~, cannot declare uae of Crossuan V. City property is A nuisance vhlch ia not so in fact. safety,
GAhAStOU, D. If A f.se is a heard to the health, snd velfare of the public. it can constitute A nuisAnce in fAct. Dart V. 565 s.W.211 373, 379 (Tex. Civ. App.
Cit of Dallas, - Tyler 1978. no .Mheless, A psrticular violation of a city’s nuisance ordinance vhich is not a ~n~iaance per ae or at c-n lav would be A question for A court of ctmpetent jurisdiction. See Crosanan v. City Galveston, Ewt v. City of D811~7 Bill V. 3 83 =Y S.W. d a5 - SAG An%%?1964, (Tax. Civ. App. vrit Villarreal, Austin, ref’d n.r.e.); Air Curta@ Destructor Corp. v.-City No. (Tex. App. - Tyler Aug. 23,
12-83-0108-CV As indicated. A hCpC rule city my.declere A public nuisance IA hasard
vhich to the health, safety, and velfare of the public. Vianello v. State, B; 8art v. City of Ds~~As. rupra; Hill v. Villarreal. B. An object of regulation need not affect AII entire city order to coaatitut:e a nuiearice. v. City of Fort Stoughtoo E, 277 S.U.2d At 153. necessary and uaeful business is not III’A msnaer not harmful itadf. a nuisance vhen operated to the public S.U.Zd 898. 901 health and general velfax,e. Benson v. DeUiAOn.
CT-. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1977, no vritr; City of Carthage v. Alluua, 398 S.W.Zd 799. (Tax. Civ. App. - Tyler 1966. no vrit); hovLITcr. A city may proAcribe harmful operations. See City of a0u8t0n v. Johnny Frank’s Auto Pwts Co., S.W.2d 77bTex. Civ. App. - [lbth Dlst.] Bouston 1972. vrit ref’d n.r.e.). The location and conduct of businesses uanner of involving hasardous substances have long been subject state and city police pover. See. e.g., Dudding v. Automatic GAS Co.. 193 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1946) (storage liquified butane gas); Tre;rill v. State. w (firevorks); Vianello V. State, supra (dog ---v. kennels , Board of Adjustment Park. S.U.Zd 727 (Tex. Civ. App. University - DAlIaS 1968. vrit ref’d n.r.e.) Goning of gasoline filling station). Thus, a hove rule uay regulate rmthod of storage of hasardoue materials pursuant to section 19.
Ponorable Lloyd Doggett - Pslit! 5 (JM-226) city could determine
Further, om instan:s8, thAt the only “SAfe” rtorage of hAzArdour ,materiala iA ~0 Atorage ueAr it8 VAter -- that Auch atorage is A nuisance supply or the supply’s tributaries Certain ubstAnces and uaea of property; in fACt. hazardous enough apprehA:Mion of danger. May be totally cAuse a veil-founded prohibited from the specific in rthlich they create A hAZArd. Treadgill V. areas State. l up ra; Stouphtoo v, ';lty of Fort Worth. B Just a0 atorase firevorks fltsmable liauida may be nrohibited because of A-vell-founded ApprAherwl.00 of &ger tb people and property neArby, ao way a home rule city prohibit the storage of substancea if introduced into the city’s vater near ita vAter aupply vhic& supply. vould endanger the he:slth, rafety, And welfare of the public.
Thus, both the method o,[ Norage of hAZArdouA substances and the areas pUrSUAnt locAtion of such atorAge may be regulated i0 sensitiVe the city’s boundaries And to rectioo 19’s nuisance c:.ause. feet Regulation of Unsafe vithlo thousand itr boundaries. rorage practices may also be enacted pursuant section 19’s VAter
pollutioo prevention clause.
As indicAted. pollution of A public vatercourse is a nUisAoCe; vater thus. supply pollw1Loo prevention C~AUSA of section 19 also encompAsses prohibiting as ouisAnce the storage of certain hazardous materials in the watersheds c’f the city’s vater supply and defining as certain unsafe a nuisance sIxwage prActices vhlch endanger the home city’s tiater -supply. Bowever, the vater prevention ia some&at broAder in nature. UAter pollutioo prevention may clause properly include regulArion cjf activities necessarily constituting A nuisance. See, e.g., City of Austin v. J~mil, w
Nevertheless. constltutionAl protections prohibit general unreasonable ordinAoces and Arbitrary applicationa of police pover. See BrookAide PillAge v. ComeAu. 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tu. U.S. 1087-(1982):ty of Austin
zt. denfAd. v. Teague. S.U.2d 38 3-bx. City Of GalVestOO. m. 1978); Crow&n 4; The only queAtio0 remaloiog iZIG ther any specific state or federA 1~~s these pavers of A home rule city. As indicated linit previously.
teat is vhether limits on that uerciae of these oovers aooear vlth “uariatatuble clarity.” of Corpus Christ1 i. Continmtal Bus cirz SYstems, Inc., lupra. On the federal level, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. U.S.C. 116901. et ae aa Amended by the Solid WAste Diapos~l Act Amendmenta of 1980. hereinAfter RCRA], was intended as A -Y compreheoaive scheme designed to deal with an alarming increase in the uncontrolled generation, trirr~sportatioo. and disposal of hazardous the RCRA deals vith vastes. the reteotion by the StAteO certain Authority 8s follow: Upon the ffecrive dAte of regulations under this subchApter no !itate or political subdivision may impose any requirements lass striDgant than *6 m Hooorable Lloyd Doggett - Page 6 W-226) ,mder thie l ubchApter raepectiog
those l uthorited #.I governed by l ueh regulations, the l Ame utter except that if A~,~~~iUtiOO of a ?eylAtiW vith to any utter respect under thiA subchApter is postponed or l njo~lned by the action of AOY court, 00 StAte or pol.itical subdivision OhAll be prohibited from eating raapect to the same with such tiu aa l uch AApACt of such matter until regulation tAkA0 8,ffACt. NothinS lo this chaptAr shall be conetrued to prohibit any State or thereof fror imporins political subdiv:%on AO~ rAquiremeots, ioc~i;,ding those selection, rite vhich are more (~ringent than those imposed by such regulatloom. (Rmphamia AddAd).
Thus, relevant federA lav doe8 not prevent TA~AS home rule cities from AWCtiOg “more stringent” provisions thA0 federA regulations. F.2d 241, 249 0.10~ (7th Cir.
See tiuclear ingioeering Co; $1. 8&t. b55 -U.S. 993 See ~180 Mlssiasippi
1981). cert. denied, (1981). Comiasioo on NAtural Resowrcea v. Coatle, 625 P.2d 1269, 1275 (5th Slmllarly. kte such lOCAl Clr. IAV does not prevent regulation; iota A field of 1egidAtlon doea not autow-
The StAte’s entry ticAlly preempt thAt field from city reguhtioo. Brookside Village v. Come~u. 633 S.U,Ild at 796. Local regulatfoa, AOCillarg to Andy ia hamony with the general scope and purpose of atate enactmenta, i. ACCeptAblA. Cit Of Brookside VillAge v. COWAU, a; see alsO --yh S.U. 202 Grin-T Cit of BeAmout v. PA Y ; City of BeAumoot v. Bond, S.Y.2d 40 (Tea. Clv. App. - Beamout 1977, writ ref’d TizTx l to r8g e Tvo date public her,Lth AtAtutea relate to
hazardour uterialA our vator ruppliea: 4477-l And 4477-7, Articles 5477-1, 23(~) of V.T.C.S. however, expressly act doec, purport to 1Mt the authority of home indiutAa enact wre c;triogeot ordiaaocea. rule CitiAa Sirilarly, l ectio o 4477-7 that. it8 proviaiooa are cuulative of article indicate8 xprrrrly other hro dirclaims any limfting effect on the Authority of local govermmta. The remaining source of potential state preemption la the Texas
Idatar Code. The code colltaioo no uprers “non-preemption” ClAuse. Aovever, 00 provlaion of the code 1Mta , vith unmistakable clarity, powera of how rule cil:J.as , AA enumerated l ectto o article 1175, to regulate torage harardour materiala vhich threaten ita vater l upply or joy contributing vater source o long AS the home doe8 not purport lessen the pollutioo city’e regulation tanderde provided in .:Ire code. I *7 R RonorAble Lloyd Doggett - Page 7 (J&t-226) The priuary otipollu~::tou provisioos the code appear in of
chapter 26. WAter Code $926.~001, et seq. Section 26.011 provides, pertinent pert, thet
[e]xcept AS otherrise specifically provided. the department ShALl Ad~mioister the provisions of this chapter and shall ~astablish the level of qUALity in, And shall control the qUAlity to be maintained vatsr in this state aA provided by this %ptsr. (Smph~eis added). Section 26.023 grants
One section is specffically preemptive. the Texas YAter Developueot Board “the sole And exclusive authority to set Tuo other quAlity standarda ~11 vater lo state.” vater provisiona, sections 26.124,(a) and 26.177, specifically prescribe of code methods of loccll govenmert pArticipatioo in enforcement provisions. All three of theBe proviAioos require explicatioo. of the Water Code
Section 26.023 is the .mly relevAnt proviaioo By granting the board sole and clearly intended to be premptive.
exclusive authority to set, by rule, vater quality StAudards. the code does not prohibit A Gle from regulating the location of and IO its vatersheda. sAfe storage standArda for hazardous materials The TAXaS Supreme Court encountered much closer question in City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.U.Zd at 796. vhere the court found thAt atAte and federal regl:lation the construction, SAfetyI And iostallatioo of mobile homes did not preempt consistent city zooing~ orditmuces regulating lmation~ uobile homes And the constmc- tioo. operatlou. and maluteosnce of uobile home perks. with uforceueot The reuainisg provis1ot.r deal primrily of code than ufoccement of
provisions rather independent, cousisteot. regs 26.124(a) tioo pursuant to other lav. Section provides for enforce- ment of aectioo 26mling vith unauthorized diechArges) by local such nforceuenta gave-ots but expressly ILimits the 10~~1 gwemment’s bouodaries. exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction.
City Bouatoo v. Clear Cfzk Basin Authority, 589 S.U.2d 671, 680-81 (Tu. Although sectToo 26.121 uay itself be broad enough to caused by unsafe storage practices, it reach ACCidentAl “discharges” does preeupt regulacim by horn; cities. -See City 26.124 does-t Brookside Village v. Comeau, supra. purport to limit independent regulatioo vhich is othervise authorized by lav.
The final provision. sc’ction 26.177, deAls vith vater pollution control by cities and expressly authorizes enforcement by cities vater control AbAteOmIt programs vithin their extra- territorial jurisdiction. City of Austin v. Jauail, suprs. Although the city of Austin based 1;; authority on section 26.177 rather than on article 1175, ca;w provides general support local ordinances vhich are conslatent with code provisions.
Donorable Lloyd Doggett - Palge 8 (JH-226) The deciaioo about sec:tiou 26.177 in City of West LAke Hills v. The court
Uestvood Legal Defense Fudk. D. is ioapposite here. held section 26.177 does not specifically the paver to grant city's located the liceose private revAge :facilities extrAterritorial jurisdictim because other Water Code proviSiOos pover to the TAXAS Wstcr COWi~SiO~. specifically granted LiCeuSiAg authority is 001: povsr thAt tvo diffAreut, ind;si;;t l XerCi*e. goveraveotal bodies can ulelily consisteotly the court in West Luke Bills dealt vith A general l~v City. Rome 1~1i cities have the benefit of ;;ticle 1175 and Are subject different state StAtUtOr]r limit8 00 home rule test limita on their paver; The Texas Water Code cities uust appear vith umi#takAble clarity.
does prevent how cities from regulAtiog the storage extraterritorial jurisdiction hAZArdOur uateriAls vithl.o their pursuant to sectioo 19 of a.rticle 1175.
SUMNARY 6ectiou 19 of Article 1175. Fureuant V.T.C.S., hove :rule cities my regulate locstion and atmage of hAxArdOu8 materials their vatersheda vithio their boundaries snd vithio their ext~:a~territorial jurisdictioo.
7-x n WATTOX Attorney GeoerAl of TEAS TOM GRRXN
Firat AaAiStAAt Attorney G,AuerAl
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive A88iatAnt Attorney GeoerAl
RICX GILPIN
ChAiimau, GpiuiOu Cmittea
PrcpAred by Rick Gilpio
ASSiStAnt Attorney tinera
APPROVED :
OPINION COMIITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colio CArl
SuSAn GarriaOn
Jim Moellinger
NAnCy SUttOD