City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Tourist Associated Businesses of Comal County Union River LLC D/B/A Landa River Trips Chuck's Tubes Waterpark Management, Inc. Tri-City Distributors, LP Stone Randall Williams And W. W. GAF, Inc. D/B/A Rockin "R" River Rides
03-14-00198-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015Background
- New Braunfels enacted two "disposable container" ordinances (including a "cooler" ban) restricting food/beverage disposable containers on portions of the Comal River and the Guadalupe River within city limits to address severe river litter and public-safety concerns.
- The City relied on documented cleanup data (e.g., ~97 tons of Comal River trash in 2011 vs. 24–34 tons in 2012–2013 after the ban) and later increases in trash collection after the injunction (e.g., a 438% increase over 2013 Memorial Day weekend) to justify the ordinances.
- Plaintiffs (local tubing and tourism businesses) sued and obtained a trial-court ruling enjoining enforcement of the ordinances as unconstitutional or preempted. The City appealed; this document is an amici curiae brief urging reversal.
- Amici are environmental and river-protection organizations arguing the ordinances are a legitimate exercise of home-rule police power to protect public health, welfare, and water quality, and that state law/constitutional provisions do not unmistakably preempt the ordinances.
- Amici contend Local Government Code §551.002 and the City Charter support municipal authority to police streams that recharge municipal water supplies, and they rely on home-rule preemption standards requiring "unmistakable clarity" to displace local regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City ordinances are preempted by state law or limited by state constitutional doctrines regarding navigable waters | Ordinances unlawfully invade the public's right to use navigable rivers and are preempted by state law and constitutional principles | Ordinances are a valid exercise of home-rule police power and not preempted; no state law shows "unmistakable clarity" of preemption; Local Gov't Code §551.002 authorizes policing streams | Trial court enjoined the ordinances; amici argue error and urge reversal (issue remains on appeal) |
| Whether the ordinances are a valid exercise of municipal police power (public health, safety, welfare) | Plaintiffs claim the ordinances unreasonably restrict river uses and harm businesses | City and amici argue ordinances address legitimate local harms (litter, safety, water quality) and are reasonably related to public welfare | Amici assert evidence (cleanup tonnage reductions) supplies an "issuable fact" supporting validity; appellate reversal is urged |
| Whether municipal regulation of navigable waters within city limits is permitted | Plaintiffs assert only the State (or its delegates) can regulate navigable waters in ways that affect public use | City argues municipalities may police navigable waters within their borders to protect health and safety, consistent with cases recognizing municipal police power over waterways | Amici cite cases upholding municipal regulation of river uses and argue ordinances do not block access or navigation |
| Scope of preemption test for home-rule cities | Plaintiffs rely on statutes/constitutional provisions to restrict municipal authority | City invokes the "unmistakable clarity" preemption standard requiring explicit legislative intent to displace home-rule authority | Amici emphasize deference to home-rule municipalities; absence of unmistakable statutory preemption supports upholding local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas Merch.'s & Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1993) (home-rule cities possess broad powers; legislative intent to limit those powers must be unmistakably clear)
- City of Brookside Vill. v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1982) (municipal ordinance valid if substantially related to public health, safety, or welfare; courts defer to municipal judgment absent clear abuse)
- City of Houston v. Bates, 406 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2013) (reiterates "unmistakable clarity" standard for preemption of home-rule authority)
- Tex. River Barges v. City of San Antonio, 21 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (upholding municipal regulation of navigation on a river as valid police-power exercise)
- Diversion Lake Club v. Heath, 86 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. 1935) (public rights to fish and navigate do not preclude governmental regulation and do not vest absolute private control)
- Proctor v. Andrews, 972 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1998) (addresses home-rule authority and related limits)