“There were some changes to state law,” City of River Falls Community Development employee Sam Wessel said for why the City needed to update its floodplain ordinance, scheduled for a first reading Tuesday, October 27 by the City Council.

In a longstanding constitutional federal republic like the United States of America, a pecking order of both inter-governmental authorities and legal precedent has slowly risen from the foundation depths over the centuries, in which either the more restrictive law (local, county, state, or federal) or else superior authority (federal, state, or county) gets to have the final say in matters of statute. When it comes to a floodplain ordinance hearing scheduled for potential enactment November 10 after a first reading October 27, the City of River Falls is deferring to that superior authority, per the federal republic’s constitutional design. For more in-depth information on the local consequences of that long-ago national compact, we got in touch with City of River Falls Community Development Department employee Sam Wessel, who filled us in on some details.

“We already have a floodplain ordinance, but we’re required to update by FEMA and DNR,” Wessel said of the City’s relationship to the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) and State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The proposed floodplain ordinance update comes after a county-wide survey indicated needed changes around Spring Valley, thereby necessitating changes to the City of River Falls as well, according to Wessel. Pending minor edits mostly relating to periods, commas, and hyperlinks, a draft of the proposed City ordinance is viewable in the River Falls Plan Commission packet for October 6, with the minutes of the Plan Commission being located in the “Agenda Center” and reached by hovering over the “Government” tab on the city’s homepage at www.rfcity.org, followed by looking to the lower left side under “Agendas & Minutes,” and finally by clicking the City Council tab once to collapse it and gain access to the other meeting minutes for River Falls city government. So what does the proposed floodplain ordinance say at present, pending some minor edits? We took a look.

In the first place, it’s L-O-N-G. Stretching some thirty one pages when counting the final page for attestation (witness and enactment) by the mayor and city clerk, the ordinance is too long to quote in full verbatim, but we took some salient points from it.

In the first place, under 17.120.010 (C) of the City ordinance, “Finding Fact,” the phrase, “Uncontrolled development and use of the floodplains and rivers in the city will impair the public health, safety, convenience, general welfare, and tax base. It is correspondingly deemed to be in the public interest to adopt and enforce the following regulations,” is amended and compacted somewhat in the new replacement ordinance. The new version of the floodplain ordinance if enacted will read, “Uncontrolled development and use of the floodplains would impair the public health, safety, convenience, general welfare, and tax base,” with the amendment shortening the ordinance and changing a future indicative (“will”) to the hypothetical subjunctive mood (“would”). Legal details matter, apparently.

The Statement of purpose following under D is left unchanged (“protect life and property” among other things), while a “Warning and Disclaimer of Liability” under 17.120.020 (J) of the floodplain ordinance reads as follows: “The flood protection standards in this ordinance are based on engineering experience and research. Larger floods may occur, or the flood height may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply or guarantee that non-floodplain areas or permitted floodplain uses will be free from flooding and flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of, or a cause of action against, the municipality or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damage that may result from reliance on this ordinance.”

Compared against the old ordinance wording, the new ordinance strikes out the word “scientific” before research” in the first sentence, changes “city” to “municipality,” and specifies the reference to “this ordinance” from a formerly specific if unclear “designated areas of the city.” Included under the above is a section on “severability” or ‘severing,’ according to which section should any part of the ordinance be declared unconstitutional the other parts would remain in force.

On the flip side of the proposed new flood ordinance update is one that the City currently has for shorelines, in which the “more restrictive” dimension of the established legal pecking order grown up under the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

“It’s wider in terms of where you can’t build than the floodplain ordinance,” Wessel said of the shoreline ordinance. “If that makes sense.” Wider in the sense used would apply to having more restrictions on where one might build as opposed to higher level and remote governments. Wessel additionally said that the City shoreline ordinance is currently undergoing the review process, with potential changes following passage of the proposed new floodplain ordinance but still requiring two readings to enact, as with all new laws for the City of River Falls.

After an initial reading of the proposed floodplain ordinance at the Tuesday October 27 Common Council meeting, a second reading and prospective enactment of the amended floodplain ordinance may occur November 10, pending public input and a Council vote.