Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-1123 Page: 4 of 6
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Lloyd Criss - Page 4 (JM-1123)
filling and raising the land level." See also Luttes,
supra, at 193 (attempt to distinguish to what extent certain
lands in the Laguna Madre had been raised above high tide
line by natural accretion and to what extent the raised
level of the land was due to certain dredging, damming, and
flood control operations, but on rehearing, the supreme
court decided that the issue of natural versus artificial
accretion was "not in the case"). Another pre-Lorino case,
Curry v. Port Lavaca Channel & Dock Co., 25 S.W.2d 987, 988
(Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1930, no writ), also suggested
the significance of the natural versus artificial distinc-
tion in stating that the littoral lands in question there
"could not be accretions, because not made up by gradual
imperceptible process of nature, but . . . were really man
made." See also Port Aransas ProperLies v. Ellis, 129
S.W.2d 699, 702 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1939, Tirit
dism'd judgm't cor.) (making natural versus artificial
accretion distinction).
In light of the Lorino case and the other authorities
cited, we conclude in response to your question that where
title to submerged littoral land is in the state, raising
the land above the tideline by artificial means does not
effect a transfer of title to the adjacent upland littoral
property owner. Title remains in the state.3
3. Your question, as submitted, reads in its entirety:
1) Who is the rightful owner of beach that has
been artificially restored? After beach property has
been reclaimed and restored, does it belong to the
owner prior to its submersal, or does it remain the
property of the State, or more accurately., of the
General Land Office? (Emphasis added.)
We are uncertain of the import of the portion of your
question that refers to the General Land Office,
underscored in the above quote. Therefore, with regard to
that part of your question, we note only that the Natural
Resources Code section 11.041 states that "the arms and the
beds and shores of the Gulf of Mexico within the boundary of
Texas" are included in the permanent school fund. The
Commissioner of the General Land Office has certain powers
with respect to such property. See, e.g., Nat. Res. Code
51.291, which authorizes the commissioner to execute
certain
grants of easements for rights-of-way across unsold
(Footnote Continued)p. 5902
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-1123, text, December 22, 1989; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273561/m1/4/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.