Update on San Antonio's preservation of land to protect the Edwards Aquifer

Back in 2005, San Antonio voters approved an extension of a 1/8-cent sales tax to be used to purchase land in the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. The goal is to prevent over-development of that land and thus preserve the quality of the water in the underground reservoir that supplies the vast majority of this city's water.

The Houston Chronicle has an update on what is being done with these funds.

It's some of the most picturesque land around this sprawling city: 116 acres of craggy, oak-covered hills near the Government Canyon State Natural Area.

The city bought the acreage in September with nearly $1 million in taxpayer funds — not for parkland but to shield it from development and preserve its role in replenishing the Edwards Aquifer.

The tracts were the first of many being acquired with proceeds from a one-eighth-cent sales tax approved by local voters last year to raise $90 million for water-related land conservation. Most of the acquisitions are likely to be in recharge zone areas of rural Medina and Uvalde counties, where land is cheaper than in heavily urbanized Bexar County.

...

"This is one of the largest, most significant conservation projects in the entire state right now," said Deirdre Hisler, who leads the city advisory board implementing Proposition 1.

...

Rather than buy land, the city prefers to seek easements that impose restrictions on the owners' use of the property but keeps it on the tax rolls.

"We only deal with willing landowners that are willing to be a part of the program," and there is no shortage of interest, Hisler said.

...

Jeff Francell, director of land protection at the Texas Nature Conservancy, said San Antonio's initiative "is going to have a major impact in the future on water quality, on protection of the aquifer and sprawl, to some degree."

By seeking easements in Medina and Uvalde counties, "we're going to be able to protect tens of thousands of acres with the $90 million," Francell said.

"We're talking about land that is in the $1,000-$3,000 an acre range rather than in the $20,000-$50,000 an acre range in Bexar County," Francell said.

The effort should benefit anyone who visits, not just San Antonians, he said.

"A lot of Houston hunts in this area. Just keeping it open for wildlife is an added benefit," he said.

This effort is just one small part of what will be needed to ensure that our quality of life in south and central Texas is preserved in the decades to come.

Off the Kuff also comments on this article, taking issue with the Texas Nature Conservancy's Francell's comment, "The state parks don't have two cents to rub together now. Private buyers are the only hope."

Kuffner writes, "Restoring, or in this case not restoring, those cuts [to state parks budget], is also a choice. Maybe that's a choice you agree with, but it's still a choice. We could choose differently, and that's why Francell's statement about private trusts being the "only hope" is wrong."

I agree that Francell's statement is wrong, but only because he left out local initiatives such as San Antonio's Proposition 1.  At the state government level, I believe Francell is on target, even given the likelihood of increased state parks budgets in the short term (a subject I will be posting about very soon). 

It is inconceivable to me that a state run by Republicans whose ideology and campaign contributors incline them towards underfunding and even selling off state parks is going to embark upon a land acquisition binge any time soon.  And what limited land acquisition by the state we may be fortunate enough to see will likely follow the Government Canyon example of public-private partnerships -- where the Trust for Public Land, and other private organizations, were instrumental in assembling what is now a showpiece of the state parks system.

So, for the foreseeable future, private land trusts and local initiatives such as San Antonio's Proposition 1 appear to be the only substantial hope for preserving undeveloped land.  Of course, I would love to be proved wrong on this.