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 10, 2015Background
- Home-rule city New Braunfels adopted two ordinances restricting distribution/use of single-use disposable containers on certain waterways to protect health, safety, and reduce litter.
- Businesses and private parties (appellees) challenged the ordinances, arguing they conflict with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, §361.0961.
- The trial court denied New Braunfels’ summary judgment, granted appellees’ summary judgment, and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the ordinances.
- The City of Austin, Texas Municipal League, and Texas City Attorneys Association filed this amicus brief supporting New Braunfels on appeal, arguing municipalities retain authority to regulate containers under home-rule police power.
- Amici contend the Solid Waste Disposal Act does not preempt municipal regulation of disposable containers because: (1) municipal ordinances promote source reduction (the Act’s priority); (2) the Act’s term “container” is ambiguous and does not unmistakably preempt local laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Solid Waste Disposal Act preempts municipal ordinances regulating distribution/use of disposable containers | Appellant (New Braunfels/Amici): The Act does not preempt; municipalities have presumption of valid police-power authority and source-reduction ordinances align with state goals | Appellees: §361.0961 and the Act occupy the field or otherwise preempt local regulation of containers | Trial court: sided with appellees—granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement. Amici urge reversal, arguing no unmistakable legislative preemption and multiple reasonable constructions preserve both laws |
| Whether municipal ordinances regulating containers are a valid exercise of police power | Appellant: Such ordinances reasonably promote health, safety, welfare, and source reduction; therefore presumptively valid | Appellees: Local regulation is displaced by state statute and therefore unenforceable | Amici: Ordinances are a proper exercise of police power and survive unless clear conflict shown |
| How statutory construction principles apply to §361.0961 | Appellant: Courts must read statute plainly, in context, favor constructions that reconcile state and local law where possible | Appellees: Argue statute should be read to preempt local regulation | Held/Amici: Because §361.0961 lacks "unmistakable clarity" to preempt, courts should construe the Act and ordinances to allow both to stand if a fair reading permits |
| Burden of proof in ordinance challenges | Appellant: Challenger bears extraordinary burden to show municipality abused its discretion or that statute clearly preempts | Appellees: Claims that statutory preemption removes deference | Trial court outcome: did not apply deference in result; Amici argue deference and presumption of validity require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1982) (municipal ordinances are presumptively valid; challenger bears heavy burden)
- Dallas Merchant’s & Concessionaire’s Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1993) (courts should reconcile state statute and city ordinance if any fair construction permits both)
- In re Sanchez, 81 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2002) (legislative preemption of home-rule authority requires unmistakable clarity)
- RCI Entm't, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 373 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (no pet.) (recognizing deference to municipal ordinances and principles for resolving conflicts)
- City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas, 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990) (statutory enactment on a subject does not automatically imply complete preemption)
- Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 73 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. 1934) (property rights are subject to valid police power regulation)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (government regulation that advances health, safety, or welfare ordinarily does not require compensation for incidental burdens)