Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Falls council hears first reading of wetland ordinance to align city code with DNR rules
Summary
At a June 23 first reading, city staff proposed five amendments to River Falls’ wetland ordinance to comply with a DNR MS4 audit, extending protections citywide, adding DNR buffer definitions and rules for impervious surfaces; second reading is scheduled for July 14.
Chris Bunger, the city’s senior civil engineer, presented a first reading of Ordinance 2026‑13 on June 23, explaining that a recent Department of Natural Resources (DNR) MS4 audit found the city’s current wetland ordinance applied only to the shoreland zone and was not as stringent as state requirements. "The audit found our wetland ordinance wasn't as stringent because it only applies to the shoreland zone," Bunger said.
The proposed ordinance would make five changes intended to bring the city into conformity with DNR rules: extend coverage to all wetlands within city limits (not just shoreland), add the DNR definition of a "protective area" (including buffer/setback requirements), clarify that projects with wetland impacts still require DNR permits, and add standards for impervious surfaces within protective areas. Plan Commission reviewed the changes and recommended Council adoption; staff recommended approval following the second reading, currently scheduled for July 14.
Why it matters: if adopted, the amendment would let city staff review and enforce the same buffer and setback standards the DNR requires, creating local authority to ensure projects meet state rules. Bunger told the council that the goal is alignment, not new developer burdens: "We're not creating additional burdens for developers — we're making sure our ordinance reflects what the DNR already requires," he said.
Council members pressed staff on practical details. Council Member Downing asked whether the DNR required a citywide extension or whether that was the city's choice; Bunger said the DNR audit specifically noted the ordinance’s limited geographic scope and requested correction. Council Member Walker sought clarification on the difference between the shoreland zone (largely adjacent to the Kinnickinnic River) and other wetlands, and asked how impervious‑surface rules would apply; staff explained the shoreland zone generally extends about 200 feet from the river and that setbacks vary by wetland quality and type.
The council also discussed how the city should treat future changes in state rules. Legal and staff comment noted three options: draft city code that automatically follows the state's current rules, leave the city's ordinance fixed and update it if the state changes, or adopt language that preserves the more restrictive standard when state rules are loosened. Staff said the city could include policy language at the second reading to clarify council intent.
The ordinance received detailed technical questions but no vote at first reading. The second reading is scheduled for the July 14 council meeting; staff said any DNR‑required permits would continue to be obtained through the DNR review process.
End note: proponents emphasized the change is intended to improve local review and enforcement to ensure compliance with existing state law, not to impose new substantive obligations beyond the DNR’s requirements.
