According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3722 is not expected to have any fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The bill creates a restriction on private construction near federally designated aerobatic training areas but does not require any new state spending, personnel, enforcement mechanisms, or infrastructure investment by state agencies such as the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to create any fiscal impact for local governments. While the legislation imposes a new land-use restriction, it does not delegate enforcement responsibilities to municipalities or counties, nor does it require them to undertake mapping, notification, or permitting duties related to the restricted zones. The practical effect on local permitting or tax revenue from future high-rise developments is not addressed, but from a budgetary standpoint, no immediate cost is expected.

In summary, while HB 3722 may influence land use and economic development decisions in certain areas near DoD contractor-operated airspace, those impacts are regulatory in nature rather than fiscal. As such, both the state and local governments are expected to implement the bill without incurring new costs.

HB 3722 seeks to enhance aviation safety and national security by prohibiting the construction of structures taller than 500 feet within five miles of designated aerobatic training areas used by Department of Defense (DoD) contractors. These training zones are approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for aerobatic maneuvers, which often involve high-risk, nonstandard flight patterns by vintage or military aircraft. The stated purpose is to provide a consistent safety buffer for areas that may not be covered by existing FAA height restrictions.

There are legitimate policy goals behind this bill. Supporters view it as a low-cost, precautionary measure to protect flight operations tied to national defense, including military air shows, contractor training flights, and potential recruitment events. Additionally, the bill may serve as an indirect response to growing concerns over foreign entities acquiring land near sensitive defense-related sites, a priority area for many legislators focused on safeguarding infrastructure and airspace from espionage or interference.

However, as drafted, the bill raises concerns about property rights and land use flexibility. It imposes a broad, static height restriction with no mechanism for appealing, modifying, or evaluating development proposals on a case-by-case basis. There is no requirement for public notice, no publicly accessible map or registry of affected zones, and no exception process for structures that may pose no meaningful interference with air operations. The restriction could limit economic opportunities for property owners in impacted areas without offering transparency or recourse. This is especially concerning in regions where tall structures, such as wind turbines or communications towers, are otherwise appropriate and beneficial.

To improve the legislation and better balance the interests of aviation safety, national defense, and private property rights, it would be prudent to amend the bill. Recommended amendments include (1) requiring the state to publish official maps of restricted zones, (2) creating a variance or waiver process administered by TxDOT or another appropriate body, (3) clarifying whether the restriction applies to manned or unmanned structures (e.g., towers vs. balloons), and (4) including a sunset provision or periodic review requirement to assess the continued relevance of the affected airspace zones.

In conclusion, HB 3722 serves an important national interest and is rooted in a rational concern about flight safety and military preparedness. However, its implementation can be improved to ensure it does not unduly infringe on landowner rights or economic development. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3722, but also strongly recommends amendments to increase transparency, flexibility, and accountability.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts the ability of individuals to fully utilize their land based on proximity to federally designated airspace. This limitation is imposed regardless of whether a landowner has any role in aviation safety or knowledge of the airspace designation. By establishing a fixed-height restriction over privately owned land without a transparent public process or a way to appeal, the bill undermines individual autonomy in a way that exceeds necessary public safety measures. It limits the liberty to build lawful structures on private land without any direct public safety finding on a case-by-case basis.
• Personal Responsibility: The principle of personal responsibility is not directly advanced or diminished by this legislation. While it does not shift direct responsibility onto individuals for safety, it also does not create incentives for individuals to take responsibility in coordinating with aviation or regulatory authorities. Instead, it imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction that bypasses individualized responsibility and risk assessment.
• Free Enterprise: By restricting the construction of structures over 500 feet tall within five miles of certain FAA-designated zones, the bill creates a barrier for some types of economic development, particularly for industries such as telecommunications, renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines), or commercial real estate development. These restrictions could deter investment or innovation in affected areas, particularly when there is no clear process for mitigating the impact. The restriction benefits a narrow set of federal defense contractors at the potential expense of broader market activity, which conflicts with the principle that enterprises should flourish with minimal interference.
• Private Property Rights: This bill imposes a significant constraint on the use of private property without compensation, notice, or appeal. Texas courts have long held that airspace is part of a landowner’s property up to a reasonable height. By statutorily limiting construction above 500 feet within a broad geographic zone, without any requirement for individualized evaluation or justification, the bill curtails a core component of property rights: the right to develop and derive economic benefit from one’s land. Moreover, property owners may not even be aware that they fall within a restricted zone, which amplifies the concern.
• Limited Government: While the bill appears narrowly tailored and doesn’t establish a new agency or enforcement mechanism, it nonetheless expands state authority into an area already governed by federal aviation regulations (via the FAA’s obstruction evaluation process). Rather than deferring to a flexible, case-by-case FAA safety review, this bill enforces a broad prohibition at the state level, potentially duplicating or conflicting with federal policy. This expands state involvement in regulating land use without clear evidence that the federal process is insufficient, weakening the principle of limited government.