Municipal Corner

AG Reviews County Permitting Authority and Liability for Buried Telephone Cables. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0499 (2025).

The Caldwell County Criminal District Attorney (Caldwell County) requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General about the scope of county authority when a utility buries cable in county rights-of-way. The questions were prompted by AT&T’s interpretation of the Texas Utilities Code, so the Attorney General opinion is limited to the code’s impact on corporations. The Attorney General first analyzed Section 181.082 of the Texas Utilities Code and found it grants telegraph and telephone corporations broad powers to install their facilities within public road rights-of-way. Section 181.082 provides that “[a] telephone or telegraph corporation may install a facility of the corporation along, on, or across a public road, a public street, or public water in a manner that does not inconvenience the public in the use of the road, street, or water.” Texas courts have interpreted this language to authorize a corporation to install facilities underground. Public policy also encourages the construction of communication systems and using public roads for new telephone lines.

Local governments cannot deny telephone companies broad powers to install their lines, but this is not without limits. Section 181.082 expressly prohibits installing a facility that inconveniences the public to the use of the road. Installation may also be reasonably regulated.

While counties may supervise the installation or designate the location of utility facilities in the rights-of-way for public roads, counties may not impose permitting or minimum-depth requirements on a telephone or telegraph corporation that buries cable in a county road right-of-way. The Attorney General emphasized that municipalities may adopt regulations relating to the location of their facilities, but a county is not authorized to do so.

Caldwell County also asked whether the county or the corporation bears the costs for repair and reburial of a cable disturbed or cut by the county in upgrading and improving county roads. In response, the Attorney General cited the doctrine of governmental immunity, recognizing that, in general, political subdivisions are not liable for negligence of their employees, absent a waiver of immunity. The Texas Torts Claim Act governs this scenario and waives immunity when property damage is proximately caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of a county employee arising from motor-driven vehicles or equipment. A claimant must prove negligence, which the Attorney General does not address since that would be questions of fact beyond the scope of the opinion.

AG Interprets Board Member Recusal Standard. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0500 (2025).

The Nueces River Authority (Authority) Board President asked the Attorney General whether a board member should recuse themselves from discussion involving a City of Corpus Christi project when that board member had a close familial relationship with a senior level employee of the City whose position carried a special interest in water development projects. Specifically, a board member’s brother-in-law was an executive of Corpus Christi Water, responsible for water supply and service. The Authority sought to construct and operate a seawater desalination plant in the Corpus Christi area to generate a new water supply and ensure present and future water security for the region.

The Attorney General’s opinion explains that a state officer or state employee may not have a direct or indirect interest, including financial and other interests, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of the officer or employee’s duties in the public interest. Tex. Gov’t Code Section 572.058 requires public, memorialized disclosure by an elected or appointed officer who is a member of a board or commission having policy direction over a state agency if that individual has a personal or private interest in a measure, proposal, or decision pending before the board or commission.

Appointed officers include an officer of a state agency who is appointed for a term of office specified by the Texas Constitution or statute. The Authority is a conservation and reclamation district under the Texas Constitution with board members who are appointed officers. The Attorney General considered the ordinary meaning of “policy direction” and found that a board member has policy direction over the Authority since it makes plans, performs actions, and adopts programs of water conservation.

The Attorney General considered what constitutes a personal or private interest by looking to previous Attorney General Opinions. A personal or private interest can originate from a familial relationship that has the potential to influence the public official in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities. The Attorney General concluded that the board member in question had a personal or private interest and must publicly disclose the conflict of interest to the board and abstain from voting on or otherwise participating in decisions concerning the plans and negotiations between the two entities.

AG Considers Commissioners Court Authority to Select a Law Firm for Redrawing Precinct Lines. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0504 (2025).

The Fort Bend Commissioners Court (Commissioners Court) and County Attorney disagreed on whether the Commissioners Court has the authority to choose the outside law firm that would assist with redrawing the county election precinct lines. The County Attorney asserted her office had exclusive authority to select the law firm to assist with redistricting.

The Opinion looked to the plain meaning and legislative intent of the statutes governing the authority of commissioners courts and county attorneys and concluded that the County Attorney may not unilaterally contract with a law firm of her choice to assist with the Commissioners Court’s redistricting duties under the Election Code. A commissioners court is the general business and contracting agency of the county, and it alone has authority to make contracts binding on the county, unless otherwise specifically provided by statute. This includes the authority to contract with experts when necessary, including attorneys. A county official, on the other hand, has no authority to make contracts that are binding on the county, except where he or she is specially so authorized to do so by statute.

Lisa Silveira is an Associate in the Firm’s Districts and Water Practice Groups. If you would like additional information related to these or other matters, please contact Lisa at 512.322.5880 or lsilveira@lglawfirm.com.