City of New Braunfels being sued over new river laws.

[Silverback]

Sorry, tried to copy paste the content too, but the iPad is pissing me off.

Looks like the local businesses and residents might get some help after the it changes on tube sizes, coolers, Noise ordinances, shuttle fees, and other restrictions have affected the tourist traffic. Not to mention the affects on tubers.

http://www.nbcitizen.com/content/NBCW/story/BREAKING-NEWS-Massive-River-Lawsuit-Served/gdmfu-TyKEiskSt6r1eMMw.cspx

[Silverback]

Got it.

Austin Attorney Jim Ewbank, on behalf of a group of New Braunfels business owners and citizens, has filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the City of New Braunfels, with the goal of overturning the City’s ordinances regarding:

River Management Fees
Cooler Sizes
Disposable Containers
Tube Size
Noise Ordinance
Shuttle Fees

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Director Mark Vickery are named in the suit, along with the Texas General Land Office, the TCEQ, and the City of New Braunfels.

The twenty-five page suit seeks permanent injunctive relief of what attorney Ewbank describes as “arbitrary and capricious” laws that violate everything from Constitutional Rights, the Texas Health and Safety Code to the Texas Natural Resource Code.

Ewbank stated "the nature of the ordinances, are designed to harm and restrict businesses and deprive citizens of their Constitutional Rights to enjoy the Rivers." Ewbank further stated "These rivers are held in trust for the people and protected by the State of Texas, and we intend on ensuring that those rights are protected for all citizens." *The lawsuit describes the City of New Braunfels attempts at regulating activity on the Comal and Guadalupe Rivers as "far over-reaching the City's police powers."

Recently, 2 different Courts of Appeals have handed down unfavorable rulings against the city regarding river ordinances, the cost to the city and taxpayers are well into the millions of dollars.

The NB Citizen, in a discussion with Texas Parks and Wildlife regarding the tube size restriction and prohibition on inflatable kayaks etc., TWPD indicated that the State only allows cities "limited powers to regulate boating" under the Water Safety Act. *Beyond that there is no authority for a city to enforce restrictions on things like tubes, rafts or kayaks, which are exempt from regulation.

Up to 5 different groups, from Kayaking and Rafting Associations to Manufacturers have already agreed to file Amicus Briefs with the courts as "interested parties" to the outcome.

[ZYouL8R]

Fuck it. Let the city enact all these ordinances and the tubers will just go elsewhere. Then one day, all the people that voted for these ordinances will be bitching when the city can't afford to fix a road or build a new library.

[Slow Five-O]

Good. Some of that crap was getting crazy as far as cooler size etc.

[jdgregory84]

Fuck New Braunfels for floating anyways.

[YALE]

I won't be going back until I can drink on the river from a disposable container. No Tour de Franz, no care.

[talisman]

Good for them. The last thing we need in this country are more laws.

[GhostTX]

We have Constitution rights to enjoy rivers?

[The King]

We have Constitution rights to enjoy rivers?

No municipal entity has jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States.

[GhostTX]

No municipal entity has jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States.

For commerce? I don't think this violates the transportation and selling of goods.

[Chas_svo]

No municipal entity has jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States.

That may be correct, but they usually can control the dirt on one or both both sides. And they apparently do not have the mental capacity to understand tourism, and the effects of that money on their city. F'em.

[The King]

For commerce? I don't think this violates the transportation and selling of goods.

The EPA extends the definition to tributaries, and isn't the Comal River a tributary of the Guadalupe? The river doesn't have to actively support commerce, but rather simply be capable of doing so. Granted though, this is a matter for the courts to decide.

That may be correct, but they usually can control the dirt on one or both both sides. And they apparently do not have the mental capacity to understand tourism, and the effects of that money on their city. F'em.

Agreed

[GhostTX]

The EPA extends the definition to tributaries, and isn't the Comal River a tributary of the Guadalupe? The river doesn't have to actively support commerce, but rather simply be capable of doing so. Granted though, this is a matter for the courts to decide.

I'm not arguing that the river/stream isn't under Federal law. I'm saying how's restricting tube/cooler size preventing commerce movement from flowing down the river? The whole point of the commerce clause, I thought, was preventing the transportation of goods for commerce. I view the ordinances the same as no motor boat or no wake action rules.

[Sgt Beavis]

I believe they are talking about the Texas State Constitution. Not the US Constitution (though that may apply in certain aspects of this)

[woodstock]

Crazy, my mom is his paralegal. I wouldnt be suprised if they won, the guy is a damn good attorney.