Will City Council honor the FWA citizen petition?
The Corpus Christi City Council is set to consider an ordinance recommended by Interim City Attorney Buck Brice that would declare the Fair Water Amendment (FWA) a "climate charter" under a 2023 state law – a designation organizers say is legally unfounded and would prevent thousands of local voters who signed the FWA petition from ever having their say at the ballot box. The council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 11 at 11:30am at City Hall.
The proposed ordinance invokes Senate Bill 1860, a 2023 state law that bars cities from holding an election on a "climate charter" amendment — defined as establishing a "comprehensive rule or policy statement that purports to address climate change or the municipality's environmental impact, including water and energy use" — unless the Texas Legislature first approves it. Because the Legislature is not in session again until 2027, declaring the FWA a "climate charter" would mean the measure would not appear on the November 2026 ballot, despite the City's duty to place a validated citizen petition before voters. The FWA petition was validated by City Secretary Rebecca Huerta on July 20.
Organizers say the state law was never intended to impact a measure like the FWA. The legislative record confirms that SB 1860 was written in direct response to a sweeping "climate charter" proposed in El Paso in 2023, Proposition K, that would have mandated municipalization of the local electric utility and established citywide renewable-energy targets. El Paso’s Proposition K also created a new city department and commission, required pre-clearance “climate impact statements” for nearly every city decision – including budgets, zoning, permits, procurement and bond issues – and voided existing fee structures retroactively.
By contrast, the FWA addresses a single issue – drought surcharges – for a single class of water user. It would terminate the City's "drought surcharge exemption fee" ordinance that excuses large-volume water users from paying drought surcharges in exchange for a fee, and instead require them to pay the same drought surcharges all other water users are subject to. While the statute's definition also mentions measures addressing water use, that clause does not stand alone, still requiring a "comprehensive rule or policy statement."
"Texas courts have said for decades that once a citizen petition qualifies, the City has a duty to put it on the ballot," said Renea Hicks, an attorney for the Fair Water Amendment campaign. "The Legislature carved out a narrow and very specific exception for sweeping climate charters, in specific reaction to Proposition K in El Paso. The FWA is fundamentally different from Proposition K. It's a single-purpose measure focused on a drought surcharge for a single class of user – and the statute requires a 'comprehensive' policy no matter which part of the definition you're looking at. Touching on water use isn't enough by itself; the law was written for sweeping mandates, not to block a specific measure. Using SB 1860 to keep FWA off the ballot would turn a narrow state exception into a tool that any city could use to veto a wide array of citizen petitions it doesn't like."
"The City Council has had years to end this drought handout on its own, and refused," said Dr. Isabel Araiza, co-founder of For The Greater Good, a sponsor of the petition drive. "Now instead of letting the voters decide, the City Attorney wants to use an unrelated state law to silence our community and let big industry keep their special deal. But council members would do well to remember that the FWA petition was signed by more voters than voted for any of them. So, it’s time for them to choose – are they there to protect big industry, or to listen to the citizens?”
“Calling the FWA a climate charter is transparently obstructionist,” said Chloe Torres, Coastal Bend regional coordinator for Texas Campaign for the Environment, co-sponsor of the petition drive. “This amendment is not about renewable energy mandates or municipalizing utilities, and it clearly does not meet the state law’s definition of a comprehensive policy – on climate or on water use. The FWA is about just one thing – reversing the exemption that the City gives to the largest industrial water users. For years, residents have watched their water bills skyrocket while big industry buys its way out of the rules. Using SB 1860 as justification to take away the voters’ power to change that policy would be exactly the kind of unfair, backroom deal the FWA was written to stop.”
“More than 12,000 Corpus Christi registered voters followed the legal process required to place the Fair Water Amendment on the ballot,” said Armon Alex, Fair Water Amendment campaign director. “Calling this narrow, single-purpose amendment a ‘climate charter’ would deny those residents the vote they earned and stretch a law written for a fundamentally different kind of proposal. The City Council should reject that interpretation, honor the validated petition, and let Corpus Christi voters decide.”
Organizers say that the City Council can still choose at the August 11 meeting to honor its obligation to place the Fair Water Amendment on the November 3 ballot, but are prepared to pursue all available legal options if they fail to do so.