Clearcutting bill meets with defeat despite sneak attack
updated July 6, 2011

A bill filed in the 82nd Texas Legislature would have allowed developers to clear-cut most of the remaining undeveloped land in Bexar County. This bill [SB 732 by Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville); HB 1388 by Rep. Chuck Hopson (R-Jacksonville)] died when the legislature adjourned on May 30th.

Senator Jeff Wentworth and Democratic Senators led by Sen. Leticia Van De Putte blocked SB 732 from coming to a vote in the Senate. In response, Senator Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) amended a different bill, HB 1665, with the clearcutting language. However, the House ruled that Fraser's amendment was not germane to the original legislation and HB 1665 was returned to the Senate where the amendment was removed.

Under Fraser's amendment, San Antonio would have been prohibited from regulating

planting, clearing, or harvesting of trees or vegetation or other uses of trees or vegetation in any portion of the extraterritorial jurisdiction...that is not located within three miles of the boundary line of a defense base.

On May 20th, after 3 days of political maneuvering by Fraser, the "clearcutting bill" was passed by the Senate. Fraser had executed a sneak attack by amending a bill dealilng exclusively with development around Dyess AFB in Abiliene.

Speaking from the Senate podium, Fraser deliberately obscured the meaning of his motion and caught San Antonio's senators off-guard. Senator Wendy Davis remarked that she "didn't understand a word Senator Fraser said."

Bill would have gutted SA tree ordinance

SB 732 would have nullified enforcement of San Antonio's Tree Preservation Ordinance in its ETJ. Enforcement would be restricted to the city limits. But most of the land inside the city limits has already been developed. The vast majority of natural land development occurs in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, where clear-cutting would be allowed.

Furthermore, as you can see from this map, the ETJ (shown in light green) is a huge area and is where a lot of large development projects are either in progress or planned.

Map showing area where HB 1665 would nullify enforcement of the Tree Preservation Ordinance (light green)
Note: ordinance was never enforced in military bases and incorporated towns

Why was this bill written?

Milestone Potranco Development,Ltd. sued the City of San Antonio claiming the City could not enforce the tree preservation ordinance on their development because it was in the ETJ. In 2009 an appeals court ruled against the developer [Court's opinion | Video of hearing] and removed all doubt as to the legality of enforcing the ordinance in the ETJ.

This bill can be seen as a continuation of the Milestone Potranco lawsuit, with relief being sought from the legislature instead of the courts. In a paper about the Milestone Potranco case, a former City attorney wrote prophetically:

…while the Potranco decision is a good one for cities, it will give developers further reason to go to the legislature in two years to attempt to have state law modified to prohibit such ordinances from taking effect in the ETJ.

Talking points

• This bill will subvert an ordinance that is strongly supported by citizens of San Antonio and its ETJ. It will preempt local control with a statewide law that is ignorant of the local issues that drove adoption of our tree ordinance.
• Property owners living in San Antonio’s ETJ testified against and submitted letters opposing HB 1388/SB 732 in both the House and Senate Committees. Several of these people own large tracts of land in the ETJ that have been in their families for generations.
• Homeowners are exempt from San Antonio’s tree ordinance which applies only to development projects.
• There is no “regulation without representation” in our ETJ. People living there are represented by their County Commissioners, who adopted the tree ordinance under an interlocal agreement with the City. Moreover, San Antonio developers have ample representation on tree ordinance committees, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission and City Council. Even though ETJ property owners pay no City taxes, they enjoy the use of 100s of millions of dollars of natural areas in the ETJ along with libraries, parks and streets purchased by city taxpayers.
• The U.S. Army & Camp Bullis, employers of 30,000 San Antonians, oppose the bill. San Antonio’s Senate and House delegations strongly oppose it. Our Mayor, a City Councilman, and the former Chief Justice of the 4th Court of Appeals testified against it. The Bexar County Judge and County Commissioners are opposed.
• HB 1665 will lead to clear-cutting of vulnerable Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone land by out-of-state corporations. This aquifer is San Antonio’s primary drinking water source.