By Annalisa Peace, For the Express-NewsUpdated Nov 27, 2023 1:06 p.m.
Under a new state law, those who own property in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, where most of the development in our region is occurring, can forgo compliance with municipal regulations. San Antonio should join the fight against this new law.
While recently reviewing documents I write for the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance — grant proposals, alerts and advocacy correspondence — I was struck by how often the word “mitigate” pops up.
We ask to mitigate pollution, flooding and all manner of degradations to our environment. Perhaps we should be asking to prevent harm by — dare I say it? — regulation.
Reviewing bills passed by the 88th Legislature, all I can say is a lot of mitigation will be required to counter the negative impacts from bills that roll back regulations enforced by local governments.
In addition to the Death Star bill (House Bill 2127), which severely curtailed the powers of cities to enforce local regulations, the passage of SB 2038 will also gut many environmental protections municipalities enforce. Under this new law, those who own property in an extraterritorial jurisdiction (known as an ETJ), where most of the development in our region is occurring, can leave the ETJ and any corresponding regulations. San Antonio’s North Side, thanks to JBSA, is exempted.
Why does this matter? Because Texas has severely limited the tools county governments can use to regulate land use. And many of the counties in our region are reluctant to exercise the limited powers they do have.
Along the fast-growing Interstate 35 corridor, growth in unincorporated areas is indistinguishable from urban development — lacking only the benefits of zoning and other planning prescriptions accorded to cities.
Many of the newest subdivisions will build out four to six houses per acre. No small portion of these will be built in environmentally sensitive areas that cannot sustain such high densities without seriously compromising the ecosystem benefits that undeveloped land provides.
Developers who would profit from enfeebling local regulatory powers were quick to claim their newly granted advantages. Immediately after SB 2038 became effective Sept. 1, cities across the state began receiving petitions for the removal of property from their extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Austin-based developer Milestone filed on Sept. 1 to be removed from the jurisdictions of Austin and the city of Hays for two high-density developments over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in order to skirt enforcement of those cities’ aquifer protection ordinances, which set strict limits on lot size, impervious cover and wastewater disposal for development over the recharge zone.
Fortunately, it appears that some cities are fighting back. According to the San Antonio Business Journal, the city of Grand Prairie has challenged the new law, calling it an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private parties.”
Lockhart’s City Council quickly joined the fight by unanimously voting to reject a petition to remove a 389-acre property near the city and voting to join Grand Prairie as a party in its lawsuit.
Given the impacts SB 2038 is inflicting on our fast-growing region, we would love to see San Antonio and all municipalities within the Edwards Aquifer region join Grand Prairie and Lockhart in this suit or file amicus briefs on their behalf.
We believe that this effort will send a strong message to our legislators, telling them “Don’t mess with Texas cities.”
Annalisa Peace is Executive director of Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance.
Nov 27, 2023 | Updated Nov 27, 2023 1:06 p.m.