The bill, authored by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, was designed to create a special recreation district along part of the San Marcos River. The failed bill was supposed to provide funds to hire law enforcement to monitor the river and a team to clean the area regularly.
SB 234 passed the Senate on May 11, but did not make it past the Out of House Committee on May 22 to be voted on, according to the Texas Legislature website.
He believes the river has been taken over by college students who “binge drink” and make the environment “unenjoyable” to others.
“Starting at about 2 o’clock we start seeing lots and lots of drunk college students binge drinking and misbehaving, playing X-rated music from their boomboxes,” Goynes said. “And basically by mid-afternoon you don’t want to be down at the river with your grandbabies.”
Goynes said he is now pushing for the Texas Parks and Wildlife department to create a linear state park along the San Marcos River. He said the protections that come along with the classification of a state park would help to better protect the river.
“The river belongs to the state of Texas and the state is allowing this party to go on daily on their property,” Goynes said. “Rivers belong to all of us and everyone should be able to enjoy it.”
If Goynes succeeds in his effort, then the consumption and display of alcohol on or along the river would be completely outlawed.
“One group has monopolized and taken over the river and made it impossible for others to get out and enjoy it, and we need to take a look at that problem,” Goynes said. “We need for the state to be creative and declare this stretch of river to be a linear state park.”
Dianne Wassenich, program director of the San Marcos River Foundation, said her alternative protection plan is to continue to promote good stewardship of the water and wait for the next legislative session.
Wassenich said she believes the influence of alcohol lobbyists on the legislators is what ultimately prevented SB 234 from becoming a law.
“There’s always going to be people that are careless and don’t care about the river, but those of us that care about it can continue to clean it up and leave it better than we found it,” Wassenich said.
Wassenich said although having the river re-classified as a linear state park would be helpful, she is not confident that success in the effort is probable.
“Well, of course (having the river classified as a linear state park) would be lovely, but I don’t think that the state of Texas is going to do that,” Wassenich said. “It would be something that has not been done before.”
She said protection of the river against litter and the overuse of alcohol is essential to harboring a safer environment for river-goers.
“There is no excuse and no moral or ethical way it makes sense for people to discard trash in the river or by the river,” Wassenich said. “You should never take Styrofoam or glass into the river because Styrofoam breaks up into little pieces—as does glass—and glass cuts people as well as animals.”
Wassenich said aluminum cans are a big problem because people let them go in the river and expect them to “magically disappear.”
“What (aluminum cans) do is carpet the bottom of the river and then all kinds of creatures take up residence inside the cans,” Wassenich said. “And then when people clean out those cans from the bottom of the river, all of those creatures die.” She said just because SB 234 died in the House does not mean students and residents couldn’t start helping to take care of the river.
Tubing outfitters such as Texas State Tubes and Don’s Fish Camp were opposed to the bill from the beginning.
SB 234 would have required Texas State Tubes to raise their prices by 30 percent, according to an April 23 University Star article.
“It’s way too much money,” said Richard Lawrence, co-owner of Texas State Tubes.
The bill would have required tubing outfitters to have their customers purchase $1-$3 wristbands to help raise the funds needed to hire law enforcement along the river.
However, Lawrence signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Don’s Fish Camp that states the owners will independently establish security measures similar to those outlined in the bill, according to the University Star article.
“We are just as concerned about safety,” Lawrence said. “I don’t know any other company that is willing to do what we are doing.”
Anna Herod is an assistant news editor for the University Star where this story originally published, and reprinted here through a news partnership between the University Star and Corridor News.