## Facts

- In 1992, Austin citizens approved by referendum the “Save Our Springs” (SOS) Ordinance, and the Austin City Council enacted it and added it to the city code.
- The SOS Ordinance was adopted as a water-pollution control measure aimed at maintaining water quality in Barton Creek, Barton Springs, and the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
- The Ordinance applied both inside Austin and in Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) where watersheds contribute to Barton Springs.
- Among other requirements, the Ordinance:
  - Limited impervious cover in regulated areas to roughly 15%–25% of net site area (depending on the zone).
  - Required setbacks from streams.
  - Required that new development not increase specified pollution constituents in stormwater runoff.
  - Included no variances or waivers.
- Jerry Quick and other landowners/developers owned property outside Austin’s city limits but within the ETJ and sued for declaratory relief.
- Quick claimed the Ordinance was void because it was illegally enacted, including arguments that it required (and did not receive) a public hearing and that it needed approval from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
- Quick also invoked the Texas Water Code’s review provision for municipal water-pollution measures, arguing the Ordinance was invalid because it was arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective.
- At trial, both sides presented conflicting evidence on the Ordinance’s water-quality effectiveness, feasibility of compliance, economic impact, and the effect of having no variance process.
- A jury found the Ordinance was illegally enacted and that its restrictions were an unreasonable, arbitrary, and inefficient attempt to control water quality; the trial court declared the Ordinance null and void.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment that the Ordinance was valid.
- Quick sought review in the Supreme Court of Texas by writ of error.

## Issues

1. Under the Texas Water Code, what is the proper judicial review of a municipal water-pollution control ordinance challenged as “invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective”?
2. Did the evidence establish that the SOS Ordinance was invalid under the Water Code because its requirements were arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective as a water-quality measure?
3. Was the SOS Ordinance illegally enacted because the City allegedly failed to follow required procedures (including a claimed public-hearing requirement) when the measure was adopted by referendum and then enacted by the council?
4. Did the SOS Ordinance exceed Austin’s authority in its ETJ by operating as an unauthorized regulation of the number, use, or size of buildings rather than a water-quality measure?
5. Was the Ordinance void because it lacked TNRCC approval?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment upholding the SOS Ordinance.
- The Court held that Quick did not carry the burden to show the Ordinance was arbitrary, unreasonable, or inefficient (or otherwise invalid) under the Texas Water Code standard governing municipal water-pollution measures.
- The Court rejected the claim that the Ordinance was illegally enacted, concluding the asserted additional procedures (including an extra public hearing) were not required under the governing law in the circumstances presented.
- The Court concluded the Ordinance did not exceed the City’s authority in the ETJ simply because it constrained development intensity; the measure functioned as a water-quality regulation directed at runoff and related pollutants.
- The Court rejected the argument that TNRCC approval was a prerequisite to validity for this municipal ordinance.
- Although the Court disagreed with parts of the court of appeals’ analysis, it affirmed the result: the Ordinance remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal ordinance aimed at controlling and abating water pollution is reviewed under the Texas Water Code’s “invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective” standard; courts do not substitute their policy judgment for the city’s where the record shows a reasonable basis for the legislative choice.
- Conflicting testimony about environmental effectiveness, feasibility, and cost does not by itself establish that a water-quality ordinance is arbitrary or unreasonable; the challenger must show the measure lacks a reasonable relationship to water-pollution control.
- A water-quality ordinance may apply within a home-rule city’s ETJ when authorized by state law; land-use effects do not convert a water-pollution measure into forbidden extraterritorial zoning when the operative requirements target runoff, impervious cover, setbacks, and pollutant loading.
- When an ordinance is adopted through a citizen referendum and then enacted by the city council, the ordinance is not void for want of additional procedures unless a statute or charter clearly requires them.
- State environmental agency approval is not required for every municipal water-pollution control ordinance absent a specific statutory mandate.

## Conclusion

Quick v. Austin upheld Austin’s voter-approved Save Our Springs Ordinance as a valid water-pollution control measure applicable in both the city and its ETJ. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and rejected claims that the Ordinance was illegally enacted, functioned as unauthorized ETJ zoning, required TNRCC approval, or was invalid under the Texas Water Code as arbitrary, unreasonable, or inefficient.


Quick v. Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (1998)