The Texas House and Senate passed dueling legislation last week regarding a local government’s ability to regulate tree-cutting on private property.

The Senate’s bill would gut San Antonio’s tree ordinance, city officials say, by banning a local government from stopping a “property owner of residential real property” from cutting trees. The House bill would require cities to allow people to plant trees in lieu of paying fees, something San Antonio’s ordinance already does.

The Senate bill passed in that chamber Wednesday and has landed at the House. The House bill passed Friday and is on its way to the Senate.

On July 22, Director Michael Shannon of the city’s Development Services Department and other local officials testified against the Senate bill at a committee hearing.

“We wouldn’t be able to protect our tree canopy as well as we do now,” he said in an interview. “It would be a real challenge to the city as well as to our military bases, air quality and health.”

San Antonio’s ordinance requires property owners to ensure a 38 percent canopy cover for single-family residential uses and 25 percent for most multifamily and nonresidential uses when they develop a property. If they don’t, they can pay fees or choose from a list of native trees to replace those cut.

The ordinance applies to new development on forested properties and requires those without trees to have enough planted to meet the canopy cover requirements.

At least 50 cities in Texas have some rules that protect trees. Gov. Greg Abbott has called these rules “socialistic” and made repealing them part of the special session agenda. The issue is part of an ongoing tug of war in the Legislature over private property rights versus local control.

The House bill mirrors language passed in the regular session representing a consensus among cities, the Texas Association of Builders and the Nature Conservancy. Abbott vetoed that bill, writing that he believes that the Legislature “can do better for private property owners in the upcoming special session.”

Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion suggesting that tree ordinances are unconstitutional after a request by Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels. San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg responded by calling the opinion a “publicity stunt.”

San Antonio’s tree rules, first enacted in 1997, survived multiple legal challenges. Shannon argued that they balance economic growth with benefits a mature tree canopy provides to the entire community.

“We want development, we like development, but we like reasonable and balanced development,” Shannon said. “Trees are a significant part of our community. They provide a lot of health benefits in terms of cleaning the air.”

According to researchers with Texas A&M Forest Service, San Antonio’s urban tree canopy provides an estimated $204 million in value by adding to air quality, biodiversity, carbon capture, cultural value and watershed protection.

However, some see the requirement to plant trees on formerly unforested land as heavy-handed.

Alan Cerwick is owner of niche fuel manufacturer VP Racing Fuels, which he said employs 160 people at a facility between Braunig and Calaveras lakes on the Southeast Side.

Preparing to expand, the company replatted its current location and purchased an additional 50-acre parcel in San Antonio’s extraterritorial jurisdiction a few miles away near Loop 1604, he said.

The replatting triggered a city review of the existing property for compliance with the ordinance. Though the land was formerly pasture, Cerwick said city staff wanted the company to plant 350 trees 6 inches in diameter or pay mitigation fees. They ended up paying $40,000.

“We felt this was a hostage scenario,” he said. “Nothing close to a partnership with the city working with us.”

The company is now planning to sell the additional property and expand in another state, he said.

Because the Senate bill refers to residential properties, it would not likely affect how tree ordinances regulate businesses like Cerwick’s. But it might have stopped the city from regulating parcels Steve Wood’s.

Wood recently built a single-family house near St. Philip’s College on the East Side. He said city officials made him create a 38 percent canopy cover on his 6,500-square-foot lot, even though the property did not have that much tree canopy when he bought it.

“I could see the ordinance being applicable off of (U.S.) 281 when they went there and scraped everything down to bare rock,” he said. “But in an urban setting like where I am, it just didn’t make a lot of sense.”

Wood also wishes that the city had allowed him to plant peach or pear trees, as he wanted, instead of having to choose from a list of native trees. He ended up planting five, he said.

Shannon said property owners can apply for variances if they want to deviate from the ordinance.

Wood said he was acting as his own contractor, submitting all development plans on his own, and did not want to go through the hassle of seeking a variance. Cerwick said city staff told his company that a variance would not apply to it.

BGibbons@express-news.net

Twitter: @bgibbs