Case Information

*1 THE RNEY GENERAL Honorable Clayton T. Garrison Opinion No. M- 1268 Executive Director

Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Re: Authority of Parks John H. Reagan Building and Wildlife Depart- Austin, Texas ment to expend an

amount greater than the sum specified at Item 10B of its current Appropriation Bill for development and expan&ion of park facilities, using funds appropriated to the Department by other items of the Appropriation Bill.

Dear Mr. Garrison:

You have requested our opinion concerning the above captioned matter and pose the following question:

'IIs the Parks and Wildlife Department autho- rized to expend an amount greater than the sum specified at Item 10B of the current Appropriatione Bill for development and expansion of park facilities at one or all of the parks listed therein, using funds appropriated to the Department by other iteme of the Appropriation Bill?"

"Item lOB, page 111-106 of S.B. NO. 11, ae amended by S.B. No. 7, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971 (Current Appropriations Bill) reads as follows: B. Development and expansion of Park facilities for the convenience of the public, including screended and group shelters, camp and trailer sites, picnic units, roads, water and electrical systems, rest rooms, park headquarters, the clearing of land, and for other facilities:

Lyndon Bainee Johnson State Park 1,000,000 u”::: Kii: Balmorhea State Park 166,500 Longhorn Cavern State Park Goliad State Park 79,400 1g, y; Mission Tejas State Park U.B. > Varner-Hogg Plantation

State Park U.B. 95,555 Stephen F. Austin (7) State Park U.B. 75,000 Lake Somerville State (8) Park 150,000 U.B. Washington-on-the-Bra205 (9) State Park 17,000 U.B." The unexpended balances remaining in Item 10B on August 31, 1972 have been reappropriated for the fiscal year begin- ning September 1, 1972. (See 111-176-177 of S.B. No. 1, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Call&d Session, 1972).

In addition to the above specific reappropriation, we aleo find the following specific appropriation to the Parke and Wildlife Department for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1973, ae ehown at page 111-111, Senate Bill No. 1, Acts, 62nd Legislature, 3rd C.S., 1972:

"21. There ia hereby appropriated from the

Texas Park Fund, pureuant to Article 4 of House Bill 730, Acts of the Sixty-second Legislature, Regular Session, 1972, for all neceseary caste /PI%-$&rgQQ,QQQ-$ep aefltl~6~~~el?-~Fpem-~he=H~gkway-Beaa~~meR~ eE-laAa-Be~Rde~-~y-6e~g~ee~-Ave~~e-~e~e~a~e SfPee~S-lQtk-SfPeef-a~~-~~~h-S~~ee~-~~-~he G~~y-e~-A~sf~R+-Teffa~~-~e~-~eve~0~me~~-e~ sai~-~aR~-ae-a-Sfate-ga~~e~-~a~k7 and for the purpose of planning, ac&isition and development of other State parks and State historic cites. Such expenditures include, but are not limited to, ealaries and wages, professional services and feee, travel, capital outlay, 4ncluding land and improvements thereto, and all other necessary costs and expenses whether by contract or direct payments. $14,500,000" *3 (Brackets ours. Item of appropriation shown in brackets was vetoed by the Governor.)

The veto of the $1,500,000 item, however, does not affect the remainder of the appropriation contained in Item 21. Attorney General's Opinion M-1228(1972).

Your requeet states in part:

?tn order to provide the nature and extent of facilltiee and improvement& required to meet existing public demand, the Department is prepared to expend a greater sum than the amount specified by the Appropriations Bill at certain of ,the parks listed in Item 10B. Any additional expenditure above the sum appropriated at Item 10B would be taken from other appropriations made to the Department. (See Item 20 and 22, page III-log, S.B.No. 11 as amended by S.B. No. 7, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session, 1972. )

"The Comptroller's Office contends that the Department is limited to a specific sum appropriated for each park as listed in Item lOB, so that the total expenditures for development projects in these parks during the current biennium cannot exceed the appropriated sum. Your attention is directed to Section 26, page V-45, S.B.No. 11 as amended by S.B.No. 7, Acts of the 62nd Legis- lature, Regular Session, 1971. This section has been carried forward in the new Appropriations Bill. (See Section 26, page V-44, S.B. No. 1, Acta of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session, 1972.)"

After much study and deliberation of the difficult complex question presented, we have concluded that we must answer it in the affirmative. It is well settled that rules of construction applicable to statutes equally are deemed to apply to appropriation bills. Attorney General Opinion NO. M-1141(1972)1 81. COTOs. 1225-1226, States, Sec. 166.

Consequently,

II . . . when it is necessary to construe an act in order to determine its proper meaning, it is settled that the Court should first endeavor to ascertain the legislative intent from a general view of the whole enactment, and the enactment alone. The intent having been ascertained, the court will then seek to construe the statute so as to give effect to the purpose of the Legis- lature, as to the whole and each material part

even though this may involve a departure h&m-the strict letter of the law as written by the Legislature. This is the fundamental canon and the cardinal, primary, and paramount rule of construction, which should always be closely observed and to which all rules must yield. . . .' 53 Tex.Jur.2d 180-185, Statutes, Section 125.

Furthermore, not only must a bill be construed as a whole, but all parts of it should be "harmonized" if possible according to the legislative intent and the courts

,t . . . will endeavor to reconcile the various provisions of the act, insofar as they may appear to be conflicting or inconsistent, to the end that the enactment and every word, phrase, clause, and sentence may have its proper effect.' 53 Tex. Jur.2d 229-231, Statutes, Section 160.

Following the above rules of construction, we must note that in current General Appropriations Act the Legislature not only reappropriated Item lOB, but also made the additional appropriation contained in Item 21 above quoted, and we must harmonize the two separate appropriations so as to give legal effect to both appropriations. Therefore it is our opinion that Item mdoes not constitute an 0,verall limitation on the amount of money that may be spent for the projects specified therein. Our opinion is that you may spend the monies appropriated in Item 21 on any parks selected by YOU, which may or may not include one or more or all of those parks designated in Item 10B.

Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page

The language in Item 21 appropriating $14,500,000 for the development and acquisition "of other State parks and State historic sites" evidently means other than the one "bounded by Congress Avenue, Colorado Street and 11th Stree in the City of Austin," that being the one designated and immediately proceeding the language "other state parks." The 'Iother" does not refer to those state parks set out in Item lOB, which is a separate reappropriation for the fiscal year beginning September 1, 1971.

While the general rule i s that the function of an appropriation is to authorize the expenditure of a certain sum of money for a certain purpose and for no other purpose and thus operates as a limitation on the amount of money that may be expended for such purpose (Attorney General Opinion No. O-4632(1942), this rule is not without exceptions. One such exception is where a contrary legislative intent evidently appears, as in this instance wherein the legislature by appropriate language has made an additional appropriation for the same purpose. Consequently, the first rule of construction must yield to the paramount rule of construction, legislative intent or purpose. 53 Tex.Jur.2d 185, Statutes, See. 125.

-SUMMARY- Item 10B of the appropriation to the Parks and Wildlife Department contained in the General Appropriations Act for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1972 (p. 111-105-106, 3604-3605) and reappropriated by the current General Appropriations Act (~.III-176-177) for the development and ex- pansion of certain park facilities, does not constitute a limitation on the amount of money that may be spent for said purposes and the Parks and Wildlife Departmen,t is authorized to spend other moneys appropriated for the development and expansion of park facilities in addition to said item of appropriation.

Honorable Clayton T. Garrislon, page

Prepared by Kerns Taylor

Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE

W. E. Allen, Acting Chairman

3. C. Davis

Jack Goodman Jay Floyd

Max Hamilton

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL

Staff Legal Assistant

ALFRED WALKER

Executive Assistant

NOLA WHITE First Assistant