R-823 ,. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ‘.. )i 

OF TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUWI-XN 11. - 

October 1, 1947 

Honorable Sidney 3. Brown Opinion No. V-395 

County Attorney 

Fort Bend County Re: The taxability of ' 

Richmond, Texas certain real property ., 

on which Sugarland Industries granted certain easement rights 

to Fort Bend County 

Water Control and Improvement District. 

Dqor Mr. Drown: 

Your requeet for an official opinion bearing 

date of September 18, 1947, Is as follows: 

"A question has arisen as to whether approximately 900 acres of land owned by the 

: Sugarlbnd Induntrles should be subject to 

State and County taxes. This land is located 

in the FortBend County Water,Control and Improvement District number One which was created about 1929 and the Sugarland Industries 

and some of its subsidiaries conveyed certain 

easement rights to the Ford Bend County Water 

Control and Improvement District number One 

in 1936 and these easements conveyed approximately 900 acres. Since 1937 the officials 

of the Sugarland Industries have signed the 

assessment rolls on the property and marked 

the asBes&aent as being exempt from taxation 

becauuse the property WOE owned by the Fort 

Bend County Water Control and Improvement 

District, a political subdivision of the 

State. 

"About ninety per cent of the area oomprising the Fort Bend County Water Control 

and Improvement District number One is Owned 

by the Sugarland Industries and a survey waB 

made by them of all the small lakee, sloughs, 

creeks, and bayous on their land and then the 

easement was conveyed to the District. The 
Honorable Sidney J. Brown, Page 2 (V-395) 

easement contained the following provisions 

with reference to the purpose of the grant, 

to-wit: 

"'A prior and superior right to take, 

we, enjoy, and dispose of for use by others, 

any and all water constituting the natural 

flow, flood or impounded waters of Oyster 

Creek, subject only to such prierities, 

other than those which would otherwise arise 

by virtue of riparian rights, as may be provided by law with respect thereto.' 

"i * * 

"The Assessor and Collector of Fort 

Bend County certainly does not intend to tax 

the Water Control and Improvement Dlatrict 

but he is contending that Sugarland Industries should pay 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 Collector has 

refused to issue tax certificotas until 

taxes arc paid upon the land for the part 

ten years. 

Concretely your question is: "Dow the granting by Sugarland Industries to 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 question requires eXten@- 

rd dlscursion. It is no longer a debatable question in 

fhia State, It, indeed, it ever was. A mere easement 

granted to the Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District by 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 Christi v. 

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 retaining title, the 

mineral rights and agricultural rights with respect 

to a certain portion of the tract, which however the 
Honorable 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 

Instrument involved f8 an easement deed. It 

Is so described in the conveyance itself. 

Its effect was to burden the lands described 

therein with an eaaement which undoubtedly 

oper8ted to decrease substantially the value 

of the property for farming or grazing purposes. 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: 

“Real property for the purpose of taxation, shall be construed to include the land 

Itself, whether laid out In town lots or 

otherwise, and all buildingsj structures and 

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, quarries and 

fo8slls in and under the same.” 

“For the purpose of taxation, real property shall include all lands within this Stat@, 

and all build$ngs gnd fixtures thereon and appertaining th8r*ta,Waxcept such 8s are txprtsaly exempt48 by law. 

It is quite apparent that this property of the 

Su rrl 

iE 

.and Industries is real estate subject to taxation 

un 4r the foregoing statutory provisions and the Corpus 

ChrZsti case, supra, notwithstanding the easement undoubtedly 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 the 
Honorable Sidney 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 Industries involved in your 

opinion request is subject to taxation. 

SUMMARY 

An easement granted by the owner of 

real property to 8 tax exempt political 

subdivlsiofi of the State,will not exempt 

the entire property from taxation since 

the grantors remain 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: