Is the Texas State Government Trying to Overstep its Rights?
03/23/2010

Governmental leaders of all realms of politics are charged with the task of protecting citizens’ natural rights and safety.

Online PR News – 23-March-2010 – – Governmental leaders of all realms of politics are charged with the task of protecting citizens’ natural rights and safety. Recently, however, many are protesting the State of Texas’ efforts to hinder a popular buildings-material company with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Declared as unreasonable to many critics, the State of Texas and its General Land Office charged the CEMEX company with a grievance that demanded the company to pay $558 million in alleged state-due royalty payments. To the relief of many business owners and citizens in the state, the courts of Texas ruled in favor of the CEMEX company, helping many individuals to feel justified in the protection of their private and professional rights.

CEMEX: Operations and Natural Resource Removal

Distributing building materials to over 50 countries around the world, CEMEX is a company that uniquely aims to help provide industries and communities with novel and inventive building materials. With this focus, CEMEX helps its clients create more eco-friendly and energy efficient facilities, as its operation teams work to remove and ultimately retail resources necessary for construction and building.

Leading up to the December 2009 case, the CEMEX company worked at an operations site in El Paso County’s McKelligon Canyon. Here, the company removed natural materials such as granite, soils, limestone, caliche, and other valuable materials for construction. Upon eradicating these materials, CEMEX sold the resources to its clients.

While this process aligned with state laws and standard operating procedures, the Texas Land Office’s Commissioner, Mr. Jerry Patterson, argued that the company owed the state a large portion of the company’s profits in this endeavor. According to Mr. Patterson’s suit, CEMEX was charged with an array of crimes: it was accused of trespassing on its own property site, of failure to pay the state of Texas for the removal and sale of its McKelligon Canyon materials, and for the failure of the company’s predecessors to pay for their own removal and sale of materials in operations taking place in the previous six decades.

Does the State Have Rights Over Natural Resources on Operation Sites?

Judge Villa, ruling over the suit against CEMEX, ultimately sided with the company, agreeing with the argument that Mr. Patterson’s lawsuit failed to align with the beliefs and prior rulings of the Texas Attorney General and the Texas Supreme Court. As a result, CEMEX California was not forced to halt its operations, nor was the company required to pay the incredibly massive $558 million in unjust fines.

With Judge Villa’s decision, landowners throughout Texas have been reassured that any natural resources not previously reserved by the state are safe from the government’s claims and ownership rights. Specifically, as some resources are legally reserved by state officials, the case has helped clarify the fact that terrain-based materials such as soil, sand, limestone, granite, gravel, and caliche remain under the landowner’s property rights and claims. From Houston to CEMEX California, the company can continue to operate and maintain CEMEX’s air quality dedication.