Anew federal law prohibited the use of various pesticides in areas with a certain population density near navigable waters. a city located in the southeastern united states was plagued by a sharp increase in disease-carrying mosquitoes. the city's board of health recommended that all residential areas be sprayed with a pesticide proven to be highly effective against mosquitoes. despite the fact that the federal law would prohibit use of that pesticide in these areas, the city council passed an ordinance adopting the board of health plan, relying on the opinions of several independent experts that the health benefits of reducing the mosquito population outweighed the risks of spraying. an environmentally minded citizen of the city brought an action in federal court challenging the ordinance. assuming that the citizen has standing, is the court likely to find the ordinance valid? a yes, because pursuant to the police power, cities have a compelling interest in laws designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. b yes, because controlling health hazards is an integral governmental function. c no, because it is superseded by the power of congress to adopt laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens. d no, because it conflicts with a federal law that congress had the power to make under the commerce clause.