When could a Texas county use county equipment to maintain roads inside a rural subdivision?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-200: Rural Subdivision Roads
Plain-English summary
JM-200 concluded that a commissioners court could use county equipment and machinery on rural-subdivision roads only if those roads had become public through commissioners-court establishment, prescription, or dedication and acceptance.
"A commissioners court may use county equipment and machinery to maintain roads in rural subdivisions if the roads were established ab initio as public roads by the commissioners court, by prescription, or by dedication and acceptance."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
The opinion said a subdivision plat that purported to dedicate roads, streets, passageways, and alleys to public use was only an offer. Filing the plat alone did not establish county authority to maintain the roads.
"The filing of a subdivision plat alone is insufficient to authorize a county to maintain roads in rural subdivisions, since the dedication is a mere offer."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
JM-200 distinguished public roads from private roads because the constitution and statutes authorized counties to build and maintain public roads, while the opinion found no comparable authority for private-road work.
"Except in circumstances not pertinent here, commissioners courts are not constitutionally or statutorily authorized to construct or maintain private roads."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
What were the three ways a rural-subdivision road could become public?
The opinion identified initial establishment by the commissioners court, public-road status by prescription, and dedication by the owner followed by public acceptance.
"There are three ways a road may become public such that a county will have authority to maintain it."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Was recording a plat with public-dedication language enough?
No. JM-200 treated the recorded dedication language as an offer that still required acceptance.
"To effect a proper dedication of land to public use, the owner must make an offer of dedication, which must be accepted."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
How could a commissioners court expressly accept a road dedication?
The opinion said the court expressly accepted a dedication by voting and recording the acceptance in its minutes.
"A commissioners court expressly accepts a dedication when it votes on and notes the acceptance in the minutes."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Could acceptance be implied without a formal vote?
Yes. JM-200 said acceptance could be express or implied and cited actions such as road repairs, placement on official maps, related public improvements, or long public use.
"An acceptance, too, may be express or implied."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Did county approval and filing of the plat itself show acceptance?
No. The opinion separated subdivision-plat approval from acceptance of the road dedication.
"The mere filing and approval of a subdivision plat showing streets to be dedicated does not constitute an acceptance."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Did the old Burnet County injunction prevent maintenance of public roads?
No. JM-200 said the injunction prohibited county-equipment use for private roads but did not alter the county's authority over public roads.
"The injunction in Burnet County, which prohibits the use of county equipment for maintenance of private roads, does not alter the county's authority to maintain public roads."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Burnet County had declined rural-subdivision road maintenance after a 1971 injunction prohibited the commissioners court from using county equipment and machinery to maintain private roads.
"You inform us that an injunction was granted in 1971 prohibiting the commissioners court of Burnet County from using county equipment and machinery to maintain private roads."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
The constitutional and statutory framework gave commissioners courts general control over county roads and authority under the County Road and Bridge Act to make rules and obtain labor, machinery, and equipment for public-road construction and maintenance.
"The act gives commissioners courts authority to ... make and enforce all reasonable and necessary rules and orders for the construction and maintenance of public roads except as prohibited by law."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
The opinion also stated the limit on county power: every action had to rest on authority expressly granted or necessarily implied by the constitution or statutes.
"While commissioners courts have broad discretion in exercising powers expressly conferred on them, nevertheless the basis for any action must be ultimately found in the constitution or statutes."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Citations and references
- The general county-road statute supplied the powers described in JM-200.
"The legislature has delegated to commissioners courts the general power to 'lay out and establish, change and discontinue public roads and highways,' and to 'exercise general control over all roads, highways, ferries and bridges in their counties.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
- The County Road and Bridge Act supplied more detailed public-road construction and maintenance authority.
"Commissioners courts are given further and more detailed powers over the construction and maintenance of public roads by the enactment of the County Road and Bridge Act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
- Article 6626a governed the subdivision-plat filing and approval process discussed by the opinion.
"Article 6626a, V.T.C.S., provides that no plat of any subdivision shall be filed unless it is authorized by the commissioners court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0200
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0200.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
hguet 31. 1984
Attorney
General
SupruIn cowl BulldIng
HonorableGrant Joam Opinion No.JH-200
P. 0. Box 12s4s
ulln.T~ 78711. 2546 ChairMU
512/47$2m PlnatxcComittee Be: Whether a county may uac
Telex 9lom741387 Texao State Senate county lquipmantand machinery
1eieocplw SlzI47w266 P. 0. Box 12068.CapitolStation to uaiotain roads In rural
Austlu. Texan 78711 subdivirriooa
714Jackm.Sulle 700
oen*s. TX. 7s2024sos Dear SenatorJones:
2lu742e.944
You ark whether the Burnet County comiealonera court ray uac
county lqulp8ent and machinery to uriatalu roads lo rural
subdlvlaioaa. Parriculrrly.you aak the followlnSqueatlons:
1. Utlstaction 1s necessary to authorize a
county to maintain a roadway in a rural sub-
10011*xar,sun9700
dlvislonl’
Hour1on. lx. 77oQ2~111
71-
2. IIIthe fIllaS of a mbdivielon pkt vhlch
purport6 to ‘hereby dedicate the roeda. etreete.
ao806Broadw4y.sun4312 peeeagewl~re,end lll alleye ohown thereoa to the
Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 uri of .tlwpublic forever’sufficientto authorize
mw7476pI)
countyrdntesuuce of tho8e roadways?
008 N. TeMh, S&e B You inform UI that an lajunctloawas grented in 1971 prohibiting
l4cAnm. TX. 7sso14tlss the comlseloaera court of Bumet Comzty from udag county equlpmeut
s12a824547
and uchiaery to n&~taln private roada. Baaed 011this injunction.
Burnet.COMty kar ccfumcd:toulntaln roada ia rural aubdlvisionr.
Z$OOUrrOplurSUlt4400
qnAnlonb.TX. 78205.2707 Oa April 22, 1972, l lbdlvlaion plet waa filed purport&g to
s12J22m101 “herebydedicatethe reeds, ltreets,pamageueys, and a11 llleys showa
thereou to the use of the public forever.”
All qwlopplunlty/
Afflnnellw
Acllon Empbyet l%e Tcru Cuwtitutim authorizes the leglalatureto providefor
the conetructloarod rlntenence of public roads. See Tex. Coast.
art. VIII. 99; art. XI. 92; art. XVI, 924. Underthie grent of
authority, the lellelatureheo delegeted to coalreionerr courte the
generel pwer to “(llay out lud latabllsh. chanSe and diacontinua
public roada and hlghveys.” ludto “(e]xercleegeneral control over
ferries
all roads. highva:r~~, end bridge6 la thclr countiee.” V.T.C.S.
art. 2351(3) and (6). In addition to theoe general powera.
comle8loner~ court8 are given further and more deteflcdpovcro over
HonorableCraat Jonas - Page i, (Jn-200)
the coaatructlonand maintenanceof public roads by the enactmentof
the County Road and Bridge Act. V.T.C.S.ert. 6702-l. The act glvaa
cmssionera court* luthorii:)! to
(1) uke and enforce all reasonable and
neceaaary rule* e~vlordere for the conatructlon
and uimteaauce of public road6 except ae
prohibitedby law;
(2) hire the labor and purchase the machinery
end equipment needed to conattuct and uintain
public roadr. . . ,
V.T.C.S.art. 6702-l. i2.002(1~).
In the exerkae of thio wthority , comlssioner~ court0 cannotgo
beyond the powers eitherexpr~csoly grantedor aeces~arllyimpliedfrom
the lenguegeof the grant. Canalesv. Laughlin. 214 S.U.2d 451 (Tex.
1948). Uhlle.coasliaaionere 'kurto have broad dlecretionIn exercising
powero expreaaly conferred on them. neverthelessthe beeis for any
action aunt be ultimatelyfcund in the conetltutlonor atatutea. -Id.
at 453.
Except in circumatancea not pertinenthere, comtisdoners courts
are not conetitutionally01: statutorilyauthorized to construct or
ulntain prlvete roada. Purthermore.case lav expresslyprohibit6the
use of "county kbor. utexals or equipment for other than public
uae.m Godley v. Duval Ceunl~!. 361 S.W.Zd 629. 630 (Tax. Civ. App. -
San Antonio 1962. mo writ). Since ao besiclfor the construction or
maintenanceof,priveteroada fs found.inthe conetltutlonor atetuteo.
the ctiedonero court mey not exerclae Mach power. .
..-
. Nowever. cdeioeere ceurte lre
expreaaly authorized by the
County-Road and Bridge Act:to constxwct
end uhtein public roaddr in
their countleo. The Tuam Iklpreme Court set out the bemlc principlea
for determiningvben a road becomes a public road, lteting:
All roado,vhl& have been laid out a nd latabllshed
by authority'of r:he camni~eioners'courte lre
$ubllc roada . . , . A road not orl@nally
.eotabli&edunder the statutemey become public by
long-continuedURIC end ldoptioe la euch by the
county comlulon~wa vith the laoent of the owner
et by preecript4an. A road may al80 become
public. in the aenee that the public have the
right to u#e it. by dedication.
NonorablcCrent Jonas - Page 3 (JH-200)
Worthington
v. Wade. 17 S.U. 520. 521 (Tex. 1891). These principlea
have been carried forward into modern case law, and a-hat
elaborated.
Beelcelly.there are thr,eeway. a road may become public ouch
that a county till have luthority to uintein it. Firat. e road can
be latabllahedlb lnltloaa a public road upon a comlaoioners court's
ouu motim. Doughty 'I.DePec,,152 S.U.2d 404. 409 (Tex. Clv. APP. -
Amarillo 1941. writ ref'd v.<~.m.).or in rerpouse to an epplicatiou
thcreforby the requisite number of freeholderrunder the provleions
o f lrticle 6702-l - l procedure which requlrea coudemation and
avardlngof damage*.V.T.C.S.art. 6702-l. 812.003and 2.004. Second,
a public road may be estebll~~hedby premrlptloo. In thla eituatlon.
It ia oecesseryto #how that an "uninterruptedu8er of the wey hes
been made by the ~public. uutler au adverse claim of right. for the
ltdutoty period of Ualtr,tion." Ladle.' Benevolent Society of
Beaumontv. UagnolicCmete~~ Co.. 288 S.U. 812. 815 (Tat. Corn'''APP.
1926. judgrt adopted). PinaiK l road uy become a public road by
dedication.a setting epert by the fee owner for public use. and
acceptance. See Hellbron v., St. Louis SouthwesternRailway Co. of
Texas, 113 S.W.10. 612 (Tex: Clv. App. 1908).
Thus. In ansver to your f'lrst,
question.we concludethat e county
lo authoricedto maintain raalweya in rural lbdlvloiono if the roads
were eetabli~hedeb inltlo em public road8 by the coaisaiouers court,
by prescription.or by dedlumlon end lcceptance by the county.
You lleo ask whether the filing o f l subdivisionplat which
purporta to "dedlcate~the reeds. ,etreets. paaaagevaym and all
alleya ; . . to% the ~u#e Of the public forever" la aufflclent to
luthorlxe~c o untyuintauxicc o f th o r r o a dtm y aTo.effect l proper
dedlutkss-of .~knd.to public-or, -the owner umt uke l offer of
'dedlcatlon, uh$@;m8< be qwpted. There are tvo kinda of dedlutloo
- statutory.andcomon-hv.
A statutory de&atiom la 'one ude lo conformity vith the
provlaloasof the mtatuteacoaprioingTexas lubdlvioloncontrol. The
reylatory lchac dependsupnl the recordetloaof a developer'sup or
plat. Article 6626e. V.T.C.8.. providea that no plat of lny
mbdivlalon llull be filed rmleoe it lo luthorimd by the
coul~olonera amrt . After approvel.the plet lo filed In the office
of the county clerk of the county in vhlcb the land liea. Art. 6626a.
12. The edwloners court,la authoricedto vitbhold plat lpproval
If a mzbmlttedplet doea nolcmeet the rmqulreaantoof the act. Art.
6626e. 94. But. if the cam&aoionera court doem not dloapprove the
plat or doea not refuse to rwthorlre the filing of mch l plet in the
county elerk'e office vh~a deciding whether a plat “meet0 the
rcquiremente ae eet forth it1 this Act,” the comierionem court in
effect approvea the plet end authoriree its film whether it etemps
. e*,
NonoreblcGrant Jonee - Page 4 (Jll-200)
”
approved end luthorlaed” ou the plat or vhether it stamps “not
dleepprovedand not unauthorlxed”thereon. Attorney GeneralOpinion
Vu-1438 (1962).
If the 8ubdlvldercomplieswith the provleioueof article6626a.
em authoriced.fllirtS by the ctieelonere court become8 l “mere
~iulsterial duty, the perfc~tmanceof which may be compelled by
mNdaN8.” Coliedonere Caret 0. Frank Jester DevelopmentCo., 199
S.W.Zd 1004, 1007 (Ten.Civ. r$p. - Dallee 1947.writ ref’d n.r.e.1.
&WXI-~W dedication8are of two claoeea- crpreaaand i=pllad.
Ladlea’ Danevolent Society ,:I Beaumont v. llagoollaCemetery Co.,
maupra, at -814. In both. It ie neceeeary that there be en
appropriationof the had by the ovner to public use. ln the one cane,
by come esprea8 manlfestetlorof hio purpoee to devote the land to
public use; In the othr,.by eiomeact or course of conductfrom which
the law would imply +uch an kltent. Id. LonS-contlnueduae by the
public la mfflclmt to imply ,Bdedicaa by the ovner.<City of Uaco
v. Fenter, ,132~ S.W.Zd 636. f,37 (TN. Clv. App. - Waco 1939, writ
ref’d).
8weverI to render a dedication complete. there must be an
acceptanceof the dedlcatloa. Cotieeloners’ Court v. Frank Jester
DevelopmentCo.. e. et 11306. An acceptance,too. may be urpreea
or implied. A ~eeioaera court expreeslyaccept8a dedicationvhen
It vote8 on end note8 the scceptance In the minutes. Bowever, the
mere flli.nSand apprwal of l aubdiviaionplat ahowingetreeta to be
dedicated doe. not conatltu::een acceptance. Id. et 1007. An
lcuptame may he implied,for Inetance. from the cG&y’o feilure to
aeeeee ~for taee io. comecr::ion with “1eyinS Sea and water mains.
&mildl.nS-•ideval.ka.Gor
.gredislfor 8treete.”City of Waco v. Fenter,
m. et 63S. or uhere’.ecounty~makee repair8 upon thestreet. or
: pIat it on.officialmap8. d1lder.v. City of Branbam~3 S.U. 309. 311
(TN. 18871. An wxe8tmce-bv al80 be irmlled fra lona-tlnued
public we-of the p&p&. /Ibert v. Gulf, C. 6 S.P. IteilGayCo.. 21
4.U. 779,:78o~(Tes. civ. pp. - 1893, no writ).
BNM., .in l euer to your .eecond que8tion. the filinS of e
8ubdlvieion plat alone ie lneufflcient to luthorlae e county to
malntein road8 in rural 8ubd.ivlelooa,8lnce the dedication18 a mere
offer. M88lonera’ Court-v. Frank Jester DevelopmentCo., e.
et 1007.
in Buraet County,vbich prohibit8the
We note that the injuacc::lon
me of county equipment for,mdatenaoce of Private roada. doe8 not
llter the county’8authorityto maintain public roads.
. I
HonorableGrant Jones - Page 18 (JH-200)
A ccm~lssioncrscourt may we county equipment
and uchincry to maintain roade in rural
eubdivleiono if th, roads were cetabliehed ab
lnitio ee public row16 by the coaaieaionerecourt.
by prcecriptlon,or by dedicationand acceptance.
UATTOX
AttorneyGeneral of Texas
TOM GREFaN
Firat Assistant AttorneyGenersl
DAVID R. RICRARDS
ExecutiveAesiatantAttorneyGeneral
Preparedby Rick Cllpln
Assietant AttorneyGeneral
APPROVED:
OPINION COMHITTEE
Rick Gilpin.Chairmen ,
David Brooks
Colln Carl
SUM0 Gmrison
Jim Woellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.