Co-author: Skyler Stuckey

After finishing his weekly rehearsal for an upcoming Robin Hood performance at his local theatre, Wiley Enferee walked into his local Mega-Mart at his wife’s behest to buy a gallon of milk.  Not thinking, Wiley walked into the store still carrying his sword on his hip.  Wiley quickly found the milk and paid in the self-checkout line, but not before concerned shoppers notified store employees, who quickly called the police.  One store employee, Sam Aritan followed Wiley into the parking lot.  Wiley left before the police arrived, but Sam jotted down his license plate and told officers which way Wiley went.  Officers quickly found Wiley in his car, and noticed he was swerving and looking down.  The officers pulled Wiley over and placed him under arrest.  Wiley explained that the sword was just a prop and he’d forgotten to take it off.  The officers let him go but wrote him a ticket for texting while driving.  Wiley is upset that he ended up with a ticket when he was just minding his business.  Should Wiley put up a legal fight?

Continue Reading Put Down Your Phone But Keep Your Sword in Your Hand

Apple iPhone 6s plus with Airbnb application on the screen.Following his transfer to Houston, Ruel Benda decided to keep his posh gated neighborhood Rodeo Drive house and started advertising it on AirBNB. His profits were so good that he began renting for 7 days or less. Insisting that Benda’s home use was commercial and not residential, a violation of his property owners association’s (POA) recorded  Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the POA fined him. Benda sued. Did he win? Can Benda continue to rent his house?

It depends. No, if Ruel Benda lived in San Antonio. Under these facts a San Antonio appellate court concluded that the POA deed restrictions prevented such rentals and granted the POA’s injunction denying further rentals.

Yes, if Benda lived in Austin where, under very similar facts, the Austin Court of Appeals found no violation of a restrictive covenant under similar circumstances, determining  that the covenant restricting homes to be used “for single family residential purposes” was ambiguous. The Austin court “resolve[d] the ambiguity against the Association and in favor of the [homeowner’s] free and unrestricted use of their property.” The San Antonio Court respectfully disagreed with the Austin Court of Appeals and did not find its reasoning persuasive.

Like Uber, the AirBNB kerfluffle has landed in the news in Chicago, Spokane, (requires a license) and even Arlington County near Washington, D.C. – just in time for Inauguration Day.  Even San Antonio is considering municipal regulations that would affect properties not otherwise subject to a property owner’s association.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor. Avoid being surprised. If you are in a property owner’s association, read your documents. While many POAs have more detailed restrictions against short term rentals (STR) of POA homes, some enforce their rules and others don’t. Likewise, while smaller counties and cities are not actively enforcing requirements to report and pay hotel occupancy taxes upon home rentals, many cities like Austin, San Antonio and Houston are.                                                                                 

Under Texas law, an STR is rental of a property for less than 30 days and the guest is charged $15 or more per day. Texas hotel occupancy tax due to the Texas Comptroller is six percent of the room cost. Counties are authorized to impose a hotel occupancy tax also.

And, by the way, your income from the STR may well be taxable. As my colleague Drew York wrote a couple of months ago, whether the income is taxable depends upon a “Master Exception” to the Internal Revenue Code. Check out our September article Do I Owe Income Taxes When I Rent Out My Home?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past three weeks, you know Donald Trump was elected the next President of the United States.  You also probably know that some of Mr. Trump’s companies are defendants in various lawsuits.  Individuals have also threatened to file individual lawsuits against Mr. Trump.  Can Mr. Trump be forced to sit for a deposition while he’s in office?  Can plaintiffs take his cases to trial during his presidency?  Or does Mr. Trump enjoy a “Presidential Privilege” during his term that bars litigation against him that is unrelated to his office?

Presidents Are Not Immune From Lawsuits for Acts Outside of Office

Generally, Mr. Trump is not immune from lawsuits that do not relate to his activities in office.  The United States Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president is not immune from litigation for acts that occurred before he became president.  This means presidents may be forced to go to trial and engage in discovery, such as a deposition, during the presidency.  However, the Supreme Court noted that in “cases of extraordinary public moment,” such as times of war, a plaintiff may be required to delay prosecuting his or her case against the president to allow the president to perform his duties to promote “public welfare or convenience.”  So, for example, a plaintiff may be required to delay trial while the president deals with a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

Will Presidents Always Be Required to Appear for a Deposition?

It’s important to remember that Mr. Clinton was being sued by a woman who claimed he sexually harassed her.  Mr. Trump faces similar allegations.  But some of his companies also face claims (Mr. Trump settled the Trump University lawsuits shortly after his election).  So can Trump be forced to sit for a deposition relating to the claims against those companies while he’s in office?  In addition to the Supreme Court’s concerns about the burdens on the office of the presidency, Mr. Trump might not have to appear for a deposition unless his personal involvement is significant to the case. Some courts have adopted an “apex deposition” doctrine that protects high level corporate executives from deposition where the executives do not have personal knowledge of facts or issues that are relevant to the lawsuit.  Thus, Mr. Trump may not be subject to deposition if he lacks that knowledge.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor

Just because the president does not enjoy immunity probably does not mean there will be a rush of lawsuits against him.  As the Supreme Court notes in Clinton v. Jones, frivolous and vexatious lawsuits are usually terminated at the pleading stage and require little personal involvement from the president.  There have also been a small number of lawsuits filed against sitting presidents for acts that occurred before they took office.  It’s thus unlikely that the American public will be subjected to a “trial of the century” involving a sitting president.

CHL in TexasPolice Chief Steroid McMuscles reported that Colt Glockenhand who entered Wally-Mart with a shotgun was not charged with “engaging in the lawful open carry of a pump-action shotgun” – a violation of the Cut and Shoot town ordinance. However, when Colt entered Kreamy Kreme, loaded his shotgun and pumped it in front of witnesses, Chief McMuscles arrested him for breach of the peace. Wally-Mart did not have a posted sign prohibiting the open carry of guns; Kreamy Kreme did. Was Chief McMuscles on target?

Texas state law now pre-empts existing city ordinances in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin, despite a last minute effort by larger cities to opt-out of the “open carry” law. And, Yes, Chief McMuscles is right for two reasons: (1) ignoring a properly posted prohibition of either “open carry” or “concealed carry” is a Class A misdemeanor, (2) displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm is a breach of the peace and a Class B misdemeanor.

Introducing the “open carry” bill, Wichita Falls Senator Craig Estes noted that Texas was one of only six states that did not permit its citizens to openly carry handguns under any circumstances. The other states are California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina. To ban the open carrying of firearms, business must post a specifically worded sign at its entrance(s).

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor

Gray Reed attorney and Texas State Representative Jeff Leach tells us: “The ‘open carry’ bill was signed in to law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 13, 2015, and becomes effective (with a few minor exceptions) on January 1, 2016, making Texas the 45th state to allow some form of ‘open carry’ of handguns. Business and property owners who wish to prohibit open and concealed carry must closely observe the signage requirements.” Special thanks for his assistance in helping preparing this article, based on this legal update he recently drafted.

Signage Requirements:

  • To prohibit the “concealed” carry of handguns by licensed CHL (LTC) holders, the sign should include the following language (pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 30.06):
    • “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing la), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.”
  • To prohibit the “open” carry of handguns by LTC holders, the sign should include the following language (pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 30.07):
    • “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly.”
  • To prohibit BOTH concealed and open carry of handguns, both signs should be posted.

General Information:

  • HB 910 authorizes individuals (with some exceptions) to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun where licensed carrying of a concealed handgun is permitted.
  • Openly carried handgun must be in a shoulder or belt holster, whether loaded or not.
  • Licensing of both concealed (CHL) or openly carrying a handgun (LTC) will not change. Both will be called LTC.
  • CHL holders may continue to carry handguns both concealed and open carry at no additional fee, nor will they be required to attend additional training.
  • New LTC applicants will be required to complete training updated to reflect new requirements addressing restraint holders for secure carry of handguns.

Even with a CHL (LTC), these weapons may not be carried concealed or “open carry” regardless of whether the handgun is holstered pursuant to Texas Penal Code §46.03 & §46.035:

A concealed handgun cannot be carried while the person is intoxicated.

  • In the premises of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which derives 51% or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages and has a conspicuous warning prohibiting firearms, if posted.
  • On the premises of a public higher education institution or private or independent institution of higher education, including any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage or other parking area
  • Inside the secured area of any airport, however a person may carry any legal firearm into the terminal that is encased for shipment purposes and checked as baggage to be lawfully transported on an aircraft pursuant to airline and TSA regulations.
  • In a place of religious worship if a proper TPC §30.06 warning is given.
  • In a hospital or nursing home if a proper TPC §30.06 warning is given.
  • In any court or offices used by a court unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization from the court.
  • At any polling place on Election Day.
  • At any meeting of any governmental body if proper notice is posted pursuant to Texas Penal Code §30.06.

PAST RELATED ARTICLES:

Glock on Board: Can you Keep a Handgun in Your Car if you Don’t have a Concealed Handgun License?

Texas Concealed Handgun Laws

Open-Carriers Pose a Threat to Restaurants with Liquor Licenses

WARNING to Liquor License Holders – “Open Carriers” Can Cost you your Liquor License

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: HB 700 Seeks to Allow Handguns to be Carried Openly

vaccineYearning to leave the frozen wasteland of Dallas, Texas behind her if just for a moment, Penny McCrathy, an outspoken anti-vaccination advocate, took her unvaccinated children to Disneyland in Anaheim, California. Not knowing that her children had been exposed to measles by a foreign tourist, Penny brought them back to Texas and sent them back to public school, which they attended under a vaccination exemption based on their “personal beliefs”. One week later, her children came down with measles as well. Most of the children in their school were immunized, but unfortunately one young lady, Ima Munenot, had a severe immunodeficiency disorder and could never receive vaccinations. One week after the McCrathy kids came down with measles, so did Ima – but while the McCrathy children got over the disease, Ima was hospitalized with meningitis and nearly died. In addition to their emotional trauma, Ima’s family incurred tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses. Might Ima’s family have a legal case against Penny for refusing to vaccinate her children and exposing Ima to a deadly disease?

Perhaps. Texas law recognizes a cause of action for the negligent transmission of infection diseases – for instance, plaintiffs have litigated and won cases involving the negligent transmission of genital herpes. Although there are no cases to date involving the negligent transmission of measles where the negligent act is a failure to vaccinate a child, it is certainly possible that a plaintiff might prevail on such a case if they can prove the essential elements of a negligence cause of action: (1) the existence of a duty from the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) harm to the plaintiff, and (4) that the breach of the duty caused the harm. The two greatest hurdles to a successful lawsuit in this case are duty and causation.

Is there Causation? Ima’s parents must prove both that Penny’s actions in failing to vaccinate her children was both the cause-in-fact of Ima’s disease and that the injury was foreseeable. According to a recent article in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, medical science can trace the spread of measles from person to person with a high degree of probability both through laboratory and epidemiological studies. It is thus very likely that Ima’s parents can prove that Penny’s children were the source of Ima’s measles. A jury could certainly find that Penny should have foreseen that Penny’s failure to vaccinate her children might spread the disease to others.

Is There a Duty? The larger hurdle for Ima is proving the existence of a duty. Courts, in determining whether a duty exists, traditionally apply a “risk-utility” test comparing the risk of harm by the actor against the social utility of the actor’s conduct. In this case, Penny’s conduct in not vaccinating her children has zero social utility and the risk is high: measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children and the measles vaccine is safe, readily available and inexpensive. Additionally, Texas statutes require that all children be vaccinated. However, those same statutes also state that a failure to comply with the statute requiring vaccination does not create a cause of action, and further that there is a statutory exemption for persons who sign an affidavit stating that they do not wish to vaccinate their children for “reasons of conscience”. In addition, persons who refuse to vaccinate their children for religious reasons may be protected by the Texas and United States Constitutions. Thus, Penny likely has a strong legal argument that she is not liable for Ima’s illness.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor. The best protection against measles is vaccination, not litigation. However, infants and persons with suppressed immune systems cannot get vaccinated. Parents of children who cannot be vaccinated should demand that schools protect vulnerable students by banning unvaccinated children from attending school during outbreaks of measles and other diseases. In the worst case scenario, however, the threat of litigation may convince parents who are on the fence to have their children vaccinated.

Halftime was just the Beginning: A backup dancer in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show goes viral upstaging the singer, Tom Brady and Russell Wilson for MVP. Thanks to social media, “Left Shark” became a “thing” overnight and an enterprising entrepreneur (Frederick Sosa) sells internet 3D printed figurines to cash in on the immediate success of the carefree creature.

The Real Shark? Katy Perry’s lawyers issued a cease and desist letter claiming copyright violations and threatening a lawsuit. No surprise there.

The Victim?  Protecting some 10 sales of a $24.99 “Left Shark Desk Figurine” versus litigation threatened by a 1,000+ attorney law firm?  No contest – Frederick Sosa of Orlando. Even assuming he did have the resources to fight, it’s not worth the time or the argument. At $24.99 a pop, the economics are obvious. The good news is that Sosa got a lot of airtime for his 3-D online printing business. In the social media world he and Left Shark upstaged everyone on the big stage.

Legal Issues? Plenty to go around on Copyright Law and 3D Printing.

Copyright. Generally speaking: Can a non-generic animal costume be copyrighted? Probably. But, who owns the right to the copyright? If used before, it may be in the public domain. If not, it depends. Who designed the shark costume? What do the contracts say among any number of possible claimants – a third party designer, Perry’s team, the NFL, NBC or someone else? Finally, if it is protectable, was it properly perfected? For the real answer to any specific copyright questions, our very own Gray Reed copyright, trademark and patent experts David Lisch and David Henry can provide the right answers to the hard questions.

Last Bite? After removing the figurine for sale from Shapeways.com, Sosa put his Left Shark figurine design on MakerBot’s Thingiverse site as a free download for anyone with a 3D printer. A modified version is still available as “Blue Drunk Shark.”

3D Printing. The more novel question? Can a 3-D printing-on-demand company be liable for the infringements of its users? The 3D printing industry blog notes that federal law provides a safe harbor for websites and services that provide a platform for users to publish their own works. Manufacturing-on-demand services could be considered analogous to sites such as YouTube and Tumblr; the only real difference is that their products are physical, not virtual. Yet a federal judge ruled last year that CafePress, which makes T-shirts and coffee mugs on demand, didn’t qualify for that safe harbor, allowing a photographer’s infringement claims against the company to proceed. A year ago, Tilting wrote about 3D printing of guns, the fact that the innovative emerging ideas of 3D printing is a disruptive technology and its likely impact on copyright issues. No doubt, more to come.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor. Evaluate the risk. Be realistic. Identify the opportunity and the near term goal. In this case, better to use sound judgment at the beginning and maximize the social media limelight, then be prepared graciously bow out.

Previous Tilting Articles: There’s a Printer for That!

 

Lisa Frick, our fictional Denton resident, who collected anti-fracing ordinance signatures to put on the Denton City Ballot now complains that fracing near old Texas Stadium caused earthquakes that harmed her twin sister Linda. Linda wants to sue our November fictional friend Frac Petroleum Company, contending that her Irving home was damaged by the January series of earthquakes caused by Frac’s hydraulic fracing that “felt like a semi hit the side of our house,” causing it to shake so badly it left structure cracks at least a half-inch wide. Can Lisa Frick’s sister Linda sue Frac Petroleum Company?

Answer

As the saying goes, anybody can file a lawsuit, but given the current status of Texas case law Linda probably won’t win. Scientific testimony relating earthquakes to hydraulic fracing is not widely accepted. Expert trial testimony requires reasoning or methodology that is scientifically valid and can properly be applied to the facts at issue – it must have attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community, the Daubert standard.

The Claim

It’s not the fracing, but rather the disposal of the leftover briny water known as “flowback” that is at the center of the hubbub. Typically, millions of gallons of wastewater are trucked from the fracing site to a second well site and injected thousands of feet underground into porous rock layers. Some seismologists say the flowback injection can cause tiny “micro earthquakes” rarely felt on the surface. While recognizing that the disposal process can trigger slightly larger quakes when water is pumped near an already stressed fault, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that only a handful of the 30,000 injection wells across the country have been suspected of causing earthquakes. While research doesn’t prove all fracing causes earthquakes, it does suggest that fracing occurring near fault lines has the potential to cause them.

Possible Lawsuit Claims

Even assuming unlikely supporting scientific Daubert evidence, a party claiming property damages in Texas could not prove that it was damaged under its most probable claim – trespass. The Texas Supreme Court held that damages for drainage by hydraulic fracturing are precluded by the rule of capture – a rule that gives a mineral rights owner title to the oil and gas produced from a lawful well bottomed on the property, even if the oil and gas flowed to the well from beneath another owner’s tract. No earthquake lawsuits have been successful in Texas, only lawsuits claiming damages from exposure to the compounds in the “flowback” – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and other compounds – that allegedly contaminated adjacent property.

My esteemed Gray Reed partner Charlie Sartain and expert Oil and Gas attorney regularly blogs at Energy and The Law and has several compelling and humorous entries worth your read:

What’s Going On in Denton, Texas?
Truth and Illusion in the Fracking Debate
Frac(k)ing, Parr v. Aruba, and Minority Oppression
In Wyoming, a Higher Burden for Chemical Disclosure Exemption?
Barnett Shale Drilling Increased North Texas Ozone – Fact or Fiction?
Hydrocarbon Exposure Reconsidered

Previous Tilting Articles: No Fracing Way!- Differences Between Surface & Mineral Estate Ownership and Come and Take It! – Denton Ordinance Prohibits Fracing

 

Broken windows, looting and fires were some of the lasting images from the Ferguson, Missouri riots.  And if you looked at those pictures closely, you may have noticed that a substantial number of the damaged businesses were locally-owned, “mom and pop” shops.   And if you are a business owner, you couldn’t help but ask yourself how would you pay for the damage if there was a riot in your community.   Fortunately, most commercial property and business owner insurance policies include coverage for property damage due to riots.  Some policies also include “business interruption” coverage for lost income when damage is so substantial that the business has to shut down until repairs are completed.  Again, coverage depends on the specific policy.  So, a business owner would be advised, as part of their year-end evaluation of their business, to review their policy with their insurance agent to ensure their business is covered for such an event.

With an ongoing Oklahoma divorce case in mind last month Tilting wrote about Tigh A. Knott, his wife Lucy Knott and how a business owner’s divorce can impact his business and affect his partners. The real players were Harold Hamm and his wife Sue Ann.

Last week the court granted Oklahoma oil tycoon Harold Hamm (aka “Tigh”) a divorce from Sue Ann. Harold was ordered to pay her $323 million before end of 2014 and $7 million a month for 93 months. Harold’s fellow shareholders were relieved. Why? Because Hamm gets to keep his company and they don’t get Sue Ann as a member of the board. A larger property award might well have required Harold to sell controlling interest to get enough cash. Or, worse yet, placed his ex-wife on the board.  Could Harold aka “Tigh” have avoided betting his company?

Absolutely. Either or both of a prenuptial agreement and a company agreement (signed by his wife) could have sidestepped the drama.

The Facts. Harold Hamm is a self-made oilman and the chief executive and majority shareholder in Continental Resources. His foresight and timely investments in the Bakken Shale formation and fracing technology turned his company into a powerhouse and made him a billionaire 18 times over. Due to a lack of planning – a prenuptial agreement or a company agreement – Harold’s ex-wife was awarded over two billion – that’s “billion” with a “b” – dollars worth of marital assets, including a payment that Mr. Hamm must make to his wife of almost one billion dollars. The payment is so large that the presiding judge ordered that it be secured by a lien on twenty million shares of Mr. Hamm’s stock in Continental, valued at over one billion dollars. A copy of the Court’s 80-page long Memorandum Order can be found here.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor – 4 Reasons to Sign a Prenuptial Agreement.

  1. Protect your business: If you own your own business, a divorce can cause that business a myriad of problems. Protect it with a prenuptial agreement and perhaps a company or shareholder agreement.
  2. Protect your partners: If you have partners, failing to have a signed shareholder agreement with all owners and spouses risks that, upon any divorce or death, the affected spouses may well become your partners with the right to participate in business decisions.
  3. Protect you (and your business) from debt: If most of your net worth is tied up in the value of your business and you have to split it with your spouse, then you either have to sell your stock or go into enough debt to pay off the divorce court’s property award. The right prenuptial and / or company agreements can avoid that risk.
  4. Protect your Business Valuation: Absent an agreement otherwise, a business can be valued a number of ways. Those signing your company agreement can agree in advance the method by which a partner’s ownership interest is valued and how a surviving spouse or ex-spouse will be paid, saving both time and money.

Previous Tilting Articles: Protecting your Business from a Lack of “Wedded Bliss”; How to Dissolve a Business;

Believing that she could no longer endure around-the-clock noise, dust and truck traffic in her residential Denton neighborhood, Lisa Frick and friends collected signatures to put a proposed ordinance on today’s ballot Generally Providing That Hydraulic Fracturing Operations are Prohibited in the City of Denton. Frac Petroleum Company, among others, argues that the City of Denton cannot unilaterally prohibit fracing operations anywhere because state rules outweigh local laws and because landowners have a right to the value of their land (and minerals) which cannot be taken without compensation. Who’s right?

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracing,” is a well-stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of underground resources including oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy that injects water, sand and chemicals under high pressure into a well, cracking the rock shale.

The Facts as reported by both sides of the vote – Vote For the Ban and Denton Taxpayers for a Strong Economy (you might be able to guess who emphasized what).

  • There are over 281 active gas wells permitted within the Denton City Limits
  • In 2013 Denton established a 1,200-foot setback from homes for new wells
  • Existing Denton drilling permits are vested under an ordinance with a much closer setback – some 200 feet from homes and parks
  • New rule is inapplicable to wells with existing permits, subject to fracing at any time
  • Drilling protects local economy, jobs, revenue to schools / colleges and local government

The Issues –  “Come and Take It” – Who wins when

Denton and Individual Surface Owners challenge Texas, Drillers and Property Owners

Individuals argue that Fracing –

  • Contaminates the water supply
  • Depletes water supplies
  • Harms air quality
  • Causes earthquakes*

State and Mineral Owners, predictably, deny these claims and argue that –

  • State agencies have strong track record of monitoring and regularly modernize
  • Only Texas Railroad Commission and, in some instances the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have authority to adopt oil and gas drilling rules
  • If passed, the Denton Ordinance would be an “unconstitutional taking” of the mineral owners’ valuable property rights
  • Contaminated water is not caused by the fracing process, but something else

Denton Mayor Chris Watts says, if his city adopts a fracing ban today, “It may be just the beginning for us,” said Watts, an attorney. “The vote is not the end of the story. It may just be the beginning. It may be decided at the courthouse or at the statehouse.”

My insightful Gray Reed partner Charlie Sartain and expert Oil and Gas attorney regularly blogs about Energy and The Law and has several compelling and humorous entries worth your read:

What’s Going On in Denton, Texas?
Truth and Illusion in the Fracing Debate
Frac(k)ing, Parr v. Aruba, and Minority Oppression
In Wyoming, a Higher Burden for Chemical Disclosure Exemption?
Barnett Shale Drilling Increased North Texas Ozone – Fact or Fiction?
Hydrocarbon Exposure Reconsidered

Also, check out this Tilting the Scales article.

* Earthquakes and other claimed fracing risks will be addressed in greater detail, especially if Denton votes to ban fracing tonight.