R-823 ,.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ‘

.. )i OF TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERAL AUWI-XN 11. -
October 1, 1947

Honorable Sidney 3. Brown OpinionNo. V-395 CountyAttorney Fort Bend County Re: ' The taxabilityof Richmond,Texas certain real property ., on which Sugarland Industries granted certain easementrights to Fort Bend County Water Control and ImprovementDistrict. Dqor Mr. Drown:

Your requeet for an official opinionbearing date of September 18, 1947, Is as follows:

"A questionhas arisen as to whether approximately900 acres of land owned by the : Sugarlbnd Induntrlesshouldbe subject to State and County taxes. This land is located in the FortBend County Water,Control and ImprovementDistrictnumber One which was created about 1929 and the Sugarland Industries and some of its subsidiariesconveyed certain easementrights to the Ford Bend County Water Control and Improvement District number One in 1936 and these easementsconveyedapproximately 900 acres. Since 1937 the officials of the SugarlandIndustrieshave signed the assessmentrolls on the property and marked the asBes&aentas being exempt from taxation becauuse

the propertyWOE owned by the Fort Bend CountyWater Control and Improvement District,a political subdivisionof the State. "Aboutninety per cent of the area oomprising the Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement

District number One is Owned by the SugarlandIndustriesand a surveywaB made by them of all the small lakee, sloughs, creeks, and bayous on their land and then the easementwas conveyed to the District. TheHonorable Sidney J. Brown, Page 2 (V-395)

easement containedthe followingprovisions with reference to the purpose of the grant, to-wit:
"'A prior and superiorright to take, we, enjoy, and dispose of for use by others, any and all water constitutingthe natural flow, flood or impoundedwaters of Oyster Creek, subject only to such prierities, other than those which would otherwisearise by virtue of riparian rights, as may be provided by law with respect thereto.' "i * *
"The Assessorand Collectorof Fort Bend County certainlydoes not intend to tax the Water Control and Improvement Dlatrict but he is contendingthat Sugarland Industries shouldpay taxes for the past ten years on the value of their remaXning interast in the property. The lahd is now being sold for home sites along the lake fronts and the Assessor and Collectorhas refused to issue tax certificotas until taxes arc paid upon the land for the part ten years. Concretelyyour question is: "Dow the granting by Sugarland Industriesto the Fort Bend County Water Mntrol and Improvement District of an easement in cerpn real property owned by it operate to exempt the #*perty in question from ad valorem taxation?'

We do not think this questionrequires eXten@- **rd** dlscursion. It is no longer a debatablequestion in fhia State, It, indeed, it ever was. A mere easement **granted** to the Fort Bend County Water Control and ImprovementDistrictby the Sugarland Industries will not support an exemption since the grantors remain in fact the owners of the property.

In the case of City of Corpus Christiv. State, 155 S. W. (2d) 824 (is&i, error refused),the landowners#ranted t$ the city of Corpus Christi a forty-year easement for the construction and use of a water reservoir,the owners retainingtitle, the mineral rights and agricultural rights with respect to a certainportion of the tract,which however theHonorable Sidney J. Brown, Page 3 (V-395)

city could use as a rtservelr in c8s* of 8n ntmtrgtncy.n In prosing upon the question,the Court stated:

"We are of the opinion that the written Instrumentinvolvedf8 an easementdeed. It Is so described in the conveyance itself. Its effectwas to burden the lands described thereinwith an eaaementwhich undoubtedly oper8ted to decrease substantially the value of the property for farming or grazingpurposes. It did not, however, diminish or destroy the title or estate of said gr8ntors to the extent that such Interest can no longer be clasaificd 8s real property and taxed as such. Article 7146, Vernon’s Ann. Civ'.

* Victor v. Hinson, 12 Tex. 30, 102 i%?;d 194; 40 Tex’. Jur., 9: , B 63.I’
We peTccivt no distinction in your c8sc and-the city of Corpus Christi case. Indeed,the facts seem almost parrllel. Articles 7146 and 7319, V. C., 9. provide respectively:

“Realproperty for the purpose of taxation, shall be construedto include the land Itself,whether laid out In town lots or otherwise,and all buildingsj structuresand improvements,

or other fixtures of whatsoever kind thereon,and 811 rights and privileges belong&n& or in 4ny wise appertaining thereto, and all mlnea, minerals, quarriesand fo8slls in and under the same.”
“For the purpose of taxation,real property shall include all lands within this Stat@, and all build$ngsgnd fixtures thereon and appertaining th8r*ta,Waxcept such 8s are txprtsaly exempt48by law.
It is quite apparent that this property of the Su rrl iE .and Industriesis real estate subject to taxation

un 4r the foregoingstatutoryprovisionsand the Corpus ChrZsti case, supra, notwithstanding the easementundoubtedly operates to decreaee the value of the property for other purposes. However, it did not, a8 expressed In the 18nguage of the Corpus Chrlsl$ case, “diminish or destroy the title or estate ol said grlntors to theHonorableSidney J. Brown, Page 4 (V-395)

extent that such Interest can no loper be classified as real property and taxed 8s such.

You'are, therefore,advised that the property of the Sugarland Industriesinvolved in your opinion request is subject to taxation.
SUMMARY
An easementgrantedby the owner of real property to 8 tax exempt political subdivlsiofi

of the State,willnot exempt the entire property from taxation since the grantorsremain the owners 'of a aubSt8nti81 interest in the property. Arts. 7146 and 7319, V. C. S.; City of Corpus .Christl

v. State, 155 S. W. (2d) 82%. Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

'LPL,'JCP

APPROVED: