Working to protect the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities area
In the coming 18 months, the RCWD will revise the Rice Creek Watershed District Plan and offer local residents and water quality advocates an opportunity to make additional improvements to the district’s water quality protection. FMR has identifies two areas for improvement that the RCWD Board should consider as this plan revision process moves forward.
The RCWD states three policies regarding flood plain alteration in the DRAFT rules document.
This rule allows cities to build in FEMA designated floodplain areas. Some cities have already gone through a special delineation process that allows them to do limited construction in the flood plain. This delineation process involves drawing a line between the “flood way” and the “flood fringe” and allows development inside that flood fringe.
| Area of flood plain | Description |
|---|---|
| Flood way | Area of the flood plain that, during flood events, has a moving flow of waters across the land area. |
| Flood fringe | Area inundated during high flooding, but not subject to a moving flow of water across the land area. |
Generally speaking, any development in the flood plain is not a good idea. There are public safety concerns as well as some obvious environmental consequences, including habitat loss and water quality degradation. The proposed rule would allow new developments in the flood fringe area if the city has delineated the flood fringe. We feel that this is not in the best interests of residents of the watershed, and it is unnecessary and unwise to encourage or allow flood plain development in this new RCWD Rules revision. Here’s why:
Given the risks of any floodplain development, and the clearly stated policy objectives of the RCWD Board, we suggest a revision of Rule E, Section 3(a-f). We do not see a need for the Watershed District to allow encroachment into and the placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain. This proposed rule should be amended during the RCWD Plan revision process to restricting future development plans from incorporating flood fringe development.
The new rules specify setbacks for ditches, but do not include any provision for stream buffers for the three core streams of the watershed: Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek and Clearwater Creek. These streams are vital natural resources and deserve stream buffer protections.
A minimum buffer for these streams is essential to prevent lawn pesticides, sediments, human wastes and other contaminants from washing into the river and threatening human and stream health. We encourage the RCWD Board to explore the potential for adoption of comprehensive stream buffers along these three vital streams. Here’s why:
The RCWD Board should consider the inclusion of stream buffers rules in the current RCWD rules revision process.