Report on the San Marcos River Task Force

V. The Third Task Force Meeting

• Senator Zaffirini’s Request to SMRTF |
• Law Enforcement/Fish Sampling/Water Quality |
• Potential Solutions Suggested by SMRTF Members

Potential Solutions/Options Suggested by SMRTF Members

Following the reports from TPWD and task force members, Chairman Jones presented a list of potential options that had been submitted by task force members. This list of  potential options is derived from ideas brought up in the SMRTF meetings or subsequently sent to TPWD staff via email by task force members. Some of the options fit into more than one of the below categories, so they are listed more than once.  The options are listed in no particular order.

Local County/Enforcement Options Suggested by SMRTF Members

Several options were suggested by SMRTF members to be implemented at a local county level. Options related to enhancing county law enforcement resources included:

• Provide more law enforcement resources, including funding.
• Provide kayaks and water safety training to local law enforcement so that they can actively patrol within the river.
• Implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with tubing companies to provide monies for additional law enforcement manpower and resources (also listed under the tubing company options category).
• Modify law enforcement hours to have law enforcement stay on the river later in the evening.  An example given was to modify times to include a 2-8 p.m. shift rather than shifts ending at 5 p.m.
• Fund an official boat/water patrol with appropriate clothing and gear (this is also listed under the legislative options category).
• Enforce noise regulations.
• Provide additional, visible law enforcement from the county, not paid for by the tubing companies, and therefore with no conflict of interest.
• Place markers along the river for improved law enforcement efforts.
• Improve communication and coordination between local officials and law enforcement groups.
• Implement a MOU between counties for law enforcement so that jurisdiction doesn’t matter.

Other options submitted by SMRTF members related to local county governmental operations included:

• Grant county regulation of rivers, specifically open containers (also listed under the legislative options category as it would require legislative action).
• Mass gathering permits and requirements should be expanded (example: expanding restroom and trash abatement requirements to area used to carry out business—the riverbed—rather than just the rental sites).
• Annexation providing Martindale more authority in ETJ (extra-territorial jurisdiction).
• Implement county road usage fees.
• Participate in programs like Keep Texas Beautiful.
• Establish a donation-based life vest program for children (as an example, Alaska has a program that does this).

Suggested Options Submitted by SMRTF Members that would Require Legislative Action

• More business regulations on outfitting companies.
• County regulation of rivers, specifically open containers (also listed under the local enforcement options category).
• Implement a non-disposable container law
• Create a Water Oriented Recreation District (WORD)
  This option has been implemented on the Guadalupe River in Comal County, which has similar large volumes of tubers. WORD is a parks and recreation district that was authorized by the Texas Legislature in 1987, in Texas Local Government Code chapter 324, and voted favorably for by the residents of Comal County in 1988. WORD’s mission is to “improve the environment and welfare of the district by conserving natural resources, improving public health, promoting water safety, and operating public parks in the district.” To carry out the mandate, WORD issues permits to water-related businesses allowing them to collect surcharges from customers visiting the district. The majority of the collected surcharges are expended on services such as:
  • Regular clean-up efforts along the river, lake, and popular roadways.
  • Law enforcement and emergency medical services.
  • Contributions to local projects and organizations to promote and improve the district.
  • Community education and outreach programs to promote safe and responsible water recreation.
  • Public health and sanitation to include dumpsters and portable toilets for public use.
  The WORD district encompasses Canyon Lake and over 30 miles of floatable water on the Guadalupe River above and below Canyon Lake. It exists within Comal County north of highway 46 to the west beginning at Guadalupe River State Park and runs east to the New Braunfels city limits.
  WORD is governed by a Board of Directors composed of seven members who are appointed by the Comal County Commissioners Court. The Board hires and oversees the manager and assistant manager who conduct the day-to-day business of the district. (Tab 49, WORD).
• Designate the riverbed as a state park.
  This option is not listed under the “Suggested Options for TPWD to Implement” category below because it is not possible at this time for TPWD to implement. The San Marcos River is a navigable river, which means the lands under it are not dedicated to the management of any individual state agency, and instead remains the responsibility of the Texas legislature. Concerns with this alternative include:
  • With 191,000 miles of riverbed in Texas, this model of management of recreational use is impractical.
  • It would require legislative action to transfer ownership of the San Marcos River to TPWD.
  • State parks normally establish a boundary at the property line where entry without a permit is prohibited and payment of fees is required. This allows the park to raise revenues to fund its operations and provides notice to park patrons and others as to where park rules apply. Limiting public access to a state-owned riverbed, however, potentially violates the right of river navigation recognized in Article XVI, section 59 of the Texas Constitution.
  • Parks normally have designated entry points where users must check in and pay fees. This is impractical on a water-only park with many road crossings and would require employing state park staff to implement.
  • One of the concerns expressed by the SMRTF is the current lack of restroom facilities on the river, and park users would expect such facilities. Providing restrooms would also require land and construction of facilities and the staffing to clean and maintain them.
  • Some general park rules would be impractical to enforce on a navigable river, such as the prohibition on use outside designated areas during night-time hours.
  • Providing law enforcement on the river during peak use times would require a large number of park police at considerable labor, equipment and training costs.
  • In the past, the Texas Legislature has regulated riverbed activity in two different ways that do not involve transferring ownership of the riverbed to a state agency. For example, Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 90, passed in 2003, generally prohibits use of motor vehicles in navigable streams, with some exceptions. This is an example of how the Legislature can address a specific behavior in the riverbed. The main objective of the advocates of the “river as a state park” proposal is to prohibit the specific behavior of public consumption or display of alcoholic beverages. Another approach the Legislature has adopted is the WORD law, in Texas Local Government Code chapter 324, which delegates control of river recreation activity to a local governmental entity, and creates a funding mechanism for local law enforcement and river cleanups.
• Expand the Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) statute to include tubes. This equates to another legislative option, designating tubes as a vessel on the river, which would hold tubers to the same standards motorboat operators are held. Concern was expressed that extending this law to non-motorized craft would greatly expand its reach and pose law enforcement challenges.
• Create a beverage container deposit law/program.
• Fund an official boat/water patrol with appropriate clothing and gear (also listed under the legislative options category).
• Conduct more environmental impact studies (wild rice, aquatic species and wildlife, water quality monitoring, etc.) (also listed under the TPWD category).
• Incorporate litter education into schools beginning at the elementary level.

Several options submitted that fit under the legislative options category involved banning specific items or activities in all or a portion of certain navigable streams, to include:

• Ban tubing.
• Ban alcohol.
• Ban cans.
• Ban coolers.
• Ban single use plastic products (this could go with the non-disposable container law listed above).

Suggested Options Submitted by SMRTF Members that Could be Implemented by the Tubing Companies  

• Place a limit on the length of time tubes are allowed to be out, or a deposit is forfeited.
• The tubing companies should provide educational materials, to include:
• Establish educational signs at put-in and take-out locations
• Create a video about proper river behavior, respecting private property, litter, and other related topics
• Place educational signs at places where tubes are sold and/or inflated
• Establish an official education/program effort with Texas State, especially with regard to litter, property rights, and underage drinking
• Implement a Memorandum of Understanding between the tubing companies and law enforcement/counties.
• Establish an in/out drink/can deposit system.
• Set a maximum number of tubes that a company could rent out per hour, which would spread out tubers during the day.
• Address the sheer numbers of tubers and set limits.
• Outfitters should pay more for cleaning up.
• Outfitters could lease private land from willing landowners to create “designated stop areas” with portable restrooms and security monitoring. Tubers should be discouraged from stopping anywhere but on the one or two designated stop sites. Maps showing these designated stops could be posted at the rental site and drop off (also listed under the landowner options category).
• Create a “last drop off” time for shuttles to allow tubers to get back before dark.
• Implement a Memorandum of Understanding with tubing companies to provide monies for additional law enforcement manpower and resources.  Related: third party oversight and transparency (e.g., amount of money provided, number of officers hired, shift information and timeframes, etc.)  (also listed under the tubing company options category).
• Provide different color wristbands or some other designation for minors vs. of-age patrons.
• Tubing companies should provide more trash and recycling bins.

Suggested Options Submitted that Landowners Could Consider

• Landowners could clearly mark private property to make trespass violations more enforceable.
• Outfitters could lease private land from willing landowners to create “designated stop areas” with portable restrooms and security monitoring. Tubers should be discouraged from stopping anywhere but on the one or two designated stop sites. Maps showing these designated stops could be posted at the rental site and drop off (also listed under the tubing company options category).

Suggested Options Submitted for TPWD to Implement

• TPWD could implement “Don’t mess with Texas Rivers” program/publicity.
• Conduct more environmental impact studies (wild rice, aquatic species and wildlife, water quality monitoring, etc.) (also listed under the legislative category as it would require additional funding).