by Alan Pryor
This article reports on potential groundwater contamination beneath the former Davis Landfill site north of the City of Davis on Poleline Rd. and the adjacent site proposed for the Village Farms Davis development project immediately south and southeast of the old landfill site.
During the contentious Measure X election in November, 2005, in which the proposed Covell Village project (on the same site as the current proposed development, Village Farms Davis) was rejected by voters, allegations were made that the site’s groundwater was contaminated by leaching of pollutants from the former Davis landfill site just north of the project. In particular, it was alleged that a carcinogen, vinyl chloride, was in the groundwater beneath the project site rendering the project unsuitable for development in as much as a deep well was proposed for the site to add to the City of Davis potable water supply.
In a recent City Council meeting (April 4, 2023) in which the possible timing of bringing peripheral projects before the voters were discussed, one public comment again stated that vinyl chloride was in the groundwater beneath the old Davis landfill and the proposed site for the Village Farms Davis project.
“The parcel itself has so many problems. It has toxics in the north end from the land fill site. The old land fill site was not lined so there is vinyl chloride leakage from the old land fill and it’s substantial. Vinyl chloride does not go away.”
These claims of vinyl chloride and other toxic compounds in the groundwater were based on data from the early 1990s though 2005 which showed some intermittent groundwater contamination (including some tests showing the presence of vinyl chloride) in shallow groundwater test wells beneath the old landfill and immediately to the south beneath the then proposed Covell Village project. These earlier monitoring well test results were reported in the EIR issued in the Covell Village EIR issued in 2005 and are further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.
These reported findings were considered important at the time because, as stated above, the Covell Village project proposal included a new deep well on the project site to provide drinking water capacity for the proposed project and connecting into the City’s potable water supply network. Concerns were expressed that the shallow water contamination could worsen and impact the deep aquifer from which potable water would be drawn. Potentially compounding the problem was the discovery that the groundwater plume was migrating from the landfill toward the south and southwest in the direction of the proposed Covell Village project.
Annual testing of the monitoring wells subsequently occurred in the period since the Covell Village EIR from 2012 – 2019. These later tests showed a substantial reduction in groundwater contamination in the intervening years and the report from consulting engineers engaged by the City to evaluate the groundwater contamination showed the following results;
- NO Vinyl Chloride was found at all in any sampled groundwater from 2012 – 2019 nor were there ANY other VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) or metals found in any of the test well samples above the EPA’s Primary Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
- There were some measurements of nitrate (probably from past agricultural fertilization on the site) in the monitored wells that were in excess of Primary MCLs and some other naturally occurring minerals (selenium, manganese, and sulfate) that were intermittently in excess of Secondary MCLs but not hugely in excess of other well waters in the area.
However, these are NOT a human health concern because the groundwater beneath the Village Farms Davis project site will NOT be pumped and used for drinking water purposes. Instead, the project will rely on City of Davis municipal drinking water supplies as delivered to the rest of the City.
- The plume of groundwater beneath the former landfill site and the proposed development project site was most recently determined to be moving toward the northeast away from the Village Farms Davis project site as a result in changes in groundwater extraction rates in the area. Thus, even if there was very unlikely leaching from the landfill site future in the future it would NOT migrate in the direction of the proposed development project.
- Based on the sampling results from 2012 – 2019 indicating no detectable amounts of vinyl chloride and no amounts of volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) or heavy metals in excess of established EPA MCLs, it was recommended that the City discontinue annual testing and request a No Further Action letter from the Regional Water Board thus confirming the area is no longer considered a threat to groundwater contamination.
These later test monitoring results from 2012 – 2019 are also further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.
Background
The 400-acre site of the currently proposed Village Farms Davis residential development project is bordered on the northeast side by the former 31-acre City of Davis waste disposal site. Historical records indicate the waste disposal activities at the Site began in the 1940s as an open burn dump. Operation as a direct-bury Class III landfill began in 1969 and received waste from residential, commercial, and industrial clients and construction debris until 1975, after which no additional waste was received.
Yearly records of the number of truckloads received were used by the City of Davis to estimate that approximately 300,000 tons of mixed waste was deposited in the landfill during its operation. The City of Davis also reported that NO hazardous classified waste had been disposed of at the landfill.
Figure 1 – Old Davis Landfill Vicinity Map
The Site was also used as the location of the former City of Davis Waste Water Treatment Facility, which included 5 surface water aeration ponds and a processing facility (Figure 2). The inactive ponds remain at the Site but the processing facility has been demolished and removed. An active Go-Kart racing facility, and an active Paint Ball facility currently occupy the southern portions of the former landfill site.
Figure 2 – Old Davis Landfill Site Map
Summary of Well Monitoring Findings
Periodic water sample testing from a series of seven monitoring wells both on the old landfill site (3 wells), on the Village Farms Davis project site (3 wells), and on the east side of Poleline Rd adjacent to the Wildhorse Golf Course (1 well) has been performed since 1992.
Concentrations of Water Contaminants – Pre-Covell Village EIR (Before 2005)
The early history of testing for contaminants (including vinyl chloride) is summarized best in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Covell Village issued in 2004 from which partial excerpted sections are quoted below;
“Old Davis Landfill, County Road 28H.
Vadose soil impacts were not detected immediately beneath the landfill facility. Trace level volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations were detected in the downgradient wells including vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloropropoane and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Elevated selenium, chloride and nitrate were further reported for the downgradient wells. D&M concluded that groundwater downgradient of the former landfill facility had been impacted by landfill leakage with some contaminant levels above California Maximum Contaminant Levels. In 1996, D&M prepared an Evaluation Monitoring Report (EMP) for the former landfill facility….Only one VOC (1,2-DCP) was detected in groundwater samples obtained from the onsite CPT probes at concentrations ranging from 0.72 to 1.2 ug/l. VOCs were not detected in any of the onsite wells during four sampling events performed in 1995 and 1996. Based on the low levels detected, D&M recommended no further action, with semi-annual groundwater monitoring.
Groundwater Sampling in 2003
The results of sampling in February 2003 did not indicate detectable VOCs in any of the monitoring wells. Only dichlorodifluoromethane was detected in onsite wells HLA-MW1 & 2 and DM-MW4 at concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 6.4 ug/l between 1999 and 2002. The CVRWQCB completed a Monitoring Report Compliance Checklist for the landfill facility in March 2002 confirming that formal monitoring should continue in addition to a determination of background water quality.
Groundwater Sampling in 2004
The Report states that the aforementioned groundwater wells were sampled on Tuesday, February 10, 2004. The results showed little change in inorganic aqueous chemistry. One organic compound, dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon-12), was detected at monitoring well DM1. This compound has been detected onsite in the past and the concentration of 5.1 parts per billion (ppb) was slightly higher than the previous results of 3.90 ppb. Both levels are well below the State’s Action Limit for drinking water standards.
Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIR, numerous Comments to the DEIR were submitted indicating that the continued presence of vinyl chloride constituted a future risk to inhabitants of the proposed Covell Village project. This was addressed in the Response to those Comments in the Final EIR (FEIR) subsequently issue, as follows;
“According to both the City of Davis Public Works Department and GEOCON Consultants, the statement on page 11-5 of the 1997 Jones & Stokes Covell Center EIR is incorrect, because vinyl chloride has not been detected in either groundwater or vapor samples collected from the monitoring wells located on the Covell Village property. As further stated by GEOCON Consultants in March 2005, review of the source document referenced in the 1997 EIR (Evaluation Monitoring Report and Proposed Corrective Action Plan, Old Davis Landfill prepared by Dames & Moore, dated June 1997) does not corroborate the statement that vinyl chloride was detected on the Covell Village property. Vinyl chloride was detected in well DM-MW3 located on the City-owned landfill property during the initial groundwater sampling events performed in March and July 1992 at concentrations of 2.0 and 2.7 ppb, respectively. Subsequent sampling performed by the City’s consultant (Dames & Moore) between September 1992 and August 1996, including five cone penetrometer test (CPT) groundwater samples collected from the Covell Village property, did not indicate detectable levels of vinyl chloride. Biannual groundwater sampling performed by the City of Davis since 1999 has only resulted in one detection of vinyl chloride; 2.8 ppb in well DM-MW2 located on northern portion of the City-owned landfill property in February 2001. The lack of persistent detections suggests that vinyl chloride is not present in groundwater beneath the former landfill or adjacent Covell Village property as a stable migrating plume”
Concentrations of Water Contaminants – Post Covell Village EIR Monitoring (2012 – 2019)
Subsequent to the defeat of Measure X at the polls and pursuant to an order from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board (CVRWQCB), the City again began testing of the groundwater in the 7 test wells from from 2012 – 2018 on an annual basis and then twice in 2019 (the later two tests to see if any seasonal variation occurred in sample concentrations). In 2018 the City retained the consulting engineers, Wallace Kuhl Associates to evaluate the well water test results and recommend an appropriate course of action, if any.
A report detailing the findings of constituents in the groundwater beneath both the landfill and the Village Farms Davis site prepared by the City’s contractor, Wallace Kuhl Associates (Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, January 23, 2020). According to this report, there was no groundwater contamination by any heavy metals or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of their established Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) and none of the samples showed the presence of any vinyl chloride contamination at all.
A Change in the Direction of Underlying Groundwater Flow
Generally, groundwater flow beneath Davis is toward the east. However, groundwater testing during the early 1990s indicated the directional flow of groundwater beneath the former landfill site was toward the south and southwest. According to the analysis performed at the site by Dames and Moore in 1997, groundwater flow was generally toward the south during fall – spring changing toward the southwest during the summer months. At the time, “this was attributed to increased pumping of groundwater at the Hunt-Wesson Plant to the southwest of the landfill…during the onset of the tomato canning season…from late-June to mid-October groundwater pumping at the plant is on the order of 2 to 2.5 million gallons per day compared to approximately 400,000 gallons per day in the off season”. It was reported this dropped local groundwater levels on the order of 7 ft. thus establishing the downgradient flow from the landfill through the Covell Village site towards the Hunt Wesson Cannery.
By 2019, however, the City’s consulting engineers had determined that the directional groundwater flow had completely changed direction as a result of discontinuance of groundwater pumping at the Hunt-Wesson plant which closed in 1999 (Wallace Kuhl Associates (Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, January 23, 2020). Their report stated that, “The groundwater contours generated based on groundwater-surface elevations indicate that on October 22, 2019, the groundwater gradient was northeast at a gradient of 0.009 feet per foot. Figure 3 depicts groundwater surface elevation contours for the modeled potentiometric groundwater-surface at the Site”.(Emphasis added).
Thus even if further contamination leakage from the landfill site commenced in the future, it will migrate away from the Village Farms Davis development site. The groundwater gradient is graphically shown in the following figure.
Figure 3 – Groundwater Directional Map
Final Assessment of the Former Davis Landfill Site
A final assessment of the former Davis Landfill Site was made by the City’s contractor, Wallace Kuhl Associates in a report entitled Site Characterization Report – Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, June 20, 2020. The main findings excerpted from this report follow (with bold emphasis added).
“4.0 2019 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
No metal concentration in groundwater exceeded its established EPA Primary MCL Maximum Concentration Limit. No VOC was detected at a concentration that exceeded its established EPA MCL.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Beginning in September 2012, the City of Davis Department of Public Works Utilities & Operations resumed groundwater monitoring at the Site. Analysis was limited to VOCs. In 2019 the City of Davis retained WKA to conduct groundwater monitoring.
WKA conducted second and fourth quarter 2019, groundwater monitoring and sampling at the Site in June and October of 2019, respectively…Analytical results from the Fourth Quarter 2019, sampling event revealed that Nitrate was detected is groundwater samples at a concentration exceeding its MCL of 10 mg/L. Manganese, Sulfate, and Selenium were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective secondary MCL.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
- Terminate quarterly groundwater monitoring and abandon wells DM-MW-1 through DM-
MW-5, as well as HLA-MW-1 and HLA-MW-2.
- WKA recommends that the State Water Board close the case and issue a No Further Action ruling for the Site.”
REFERENCES
All data on the site and groundwater contamination for this report was obtained from the following pertaining to the former landfill site. Copies are available upon request.
- Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Report, Report for Old Davis Landfill, Dames and Moore, January, 1993
- Evaluation Monitoring Report and Proposed Corrective Action Plan – Old Davis Landfill, Dames and Moore, June 1997
- Covell Village Draft Program Level Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2004062089, Raney Planning and Management, December, 2004
- Covell Village Final Program Level Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2004062089, Raney Planning and Management, May, 2005
- Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, Wallace Kuhl Associates, January 23, 2020
- 6. Site Characterization Report – Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, Wallace Kuhl Associates, June 20, 2020).
So, it sounds like Covell Village II is even worse for the city, itself. That is, unless one believes that droughts won’t occur again, creating mandatory water restrictions for the entire city.
Honestly, I have no idea why you’re supporting Covell Village II. This proposal is just as massive, just as sprawling as Covell Village I. Destroying highly-visible prime farmland, making traffic even worse than Covell Village I (due to developments which have arisen since then, such as The Cannery and Spring Lake).
“Honestly, I have no idea why you’re supporting Covell Village II. This proposal is just as massive, just as sprawling as Covell Village I.”
I can’t speak for Alan, but I can tell you that context matters. Covell Village in 2005 came on the heels of several large developments over the previous 20 years. Village Farms in 2023 is coming in the midst of a housing crisis where the city has only seen 700 single family homes built in the last 20 years.
Assuming that the “700” figure is correct, that sounds like quite a few to me, especially since single-family dwellings are the least-efficient use of space possible. How many more would you like to see gobble-up prime farmland? (Or more to the point, how much more prime farmland would you like to see sacrificed for single-family dwellings?)
And how many pre-existing houses changed hands during that time? Put that figure forth, as it’s accommodating the same supposed “need” that you claim to be concerned about.
The diagram that Alan posted shows that this 400-acre development extends beyond The Cannery and wraps-around it on two sides. I’m seeing no real difference between this and Covell Village I. (Though if I’m not mistaken, Covell Village I might have included a sports park/facility, and/or preserved Nugget Fields indefinitely. However, I doubt that Nugget Fields will ever be in jeopardy, regardless.)
By the way, exactly how are you defining “housing crisis”, and how will we know when it’s over?
Figure came from the city. 700 is over a 15 year period, less than 50 a year. That’s not quite a few. That’s barely a decent size development over nearly two decades.
Repeating the “700” figure is not a response to any of my questions.
Again, how much more prime agricultural land do you want to see sacrificed for single-family houses?
How are you defining “housing crisis”, and how will you know when it’s “over”?
And again, how many pre-existing houses sold during that period?
By the way, below is a nice one (at a reasonable price), I think. Appears to be in good condition, as well.
I’d jump on the one below, if I needed a house. I think this is a better choice than most of the new houses in Woodland – especially since new houses don’t generally include backyard landscaping, blinds, etc. And these days, many lots are smaller, to boot:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2558-Regis-Dr-Davis-CA-95618/16518779_zpid/
By the way, when is Chiles Ranch going to be built? Some 96 small single-family houses, as I recall – within city limits.
But new houses do come with one “feature” that older houses often don’t have: Mello-Roos taxes/fees.
That’s probably the biggest reason of all that a house like the one above is preferable to a house in a new housing development.
You have to really, really want (and can afford) a “new” house to justify paying for those taxes/fees – which are essentially permanent (e.g., 30 years or so, in many cases). In fact, some never go away.
In some ways, this is a good thing – as it discourages new proposals (assuming that buyers understand it, and that it’s actually/fully disclosed). Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way (and buyers tend to compare based upon sales price, alone).
The amount of water currently being used on that land–probably about 3 acre-feet/acre for farming–is actually more than what will be used in a properly landscaped urban development. In other words, the risk of drought impacts will decrease with the new development and the groundwater sources in Yolo County will be extended. Fully understanding how resources are used in our economy is necessary before plunging into unheeded criticism.
Covell Village also didn’t include 1100 square foot starter homes.
In the event of a statewide drought emergency and a declaration of a ‘Shasta critical’ condition leading to temporary curtailment of surface water supplies, the city reverts to use of water from the deep aquifer wells. They have some of the intermediate-depth wells operational for emergency but those are not the primary water supply at any time. Contamination of the deep aquifer is not a likely concern.
Worth noting that even during the recent statewide drought declaration and order for 30% water reduction, Davis was able to use surface water for a very high percentage of the total supply.
Water supplies are not an issue for this project. Nor apparently are the purported toxins.
And yet, the city instituted mandatory water restrictions, regardless. So apparently, there’s no actual reason for that?
By the way, isn’t sewer capacity ultimately an issue, as well? (Not that this proposal would push it over the edge, but at what point would that happen?)
The reason for that was that it was a state requirement. Davis was not short of water.
So, state requirements are not based upon need (or reality)? And the city just goes along with it, without a peep? Forced mandatory restrictions imposed upon city residents, for no actual reason at all (and no pushback from city leaders)?
And they call themselves “city representatives”?
I would think that we can assume the same regarding the state’s RHNA requirements, then. (Well actually, the state auditor office already called those into question.)
I’ll refrain from asking where the “city’s representatives” are regarding that, as well.
What about the sewer system (as already asked)? (I realize you might not know the answer to that.)
My kneejerk was to start with a “forest for the trees” angle, but also stating that Alan Pryor is certainly nearly unassailable as a big picture thinker in environmental protections.
BUT, instead:
* “When push comes to shove” – e.g. when they feel desperate for housing in a particular place, or with accessible schools in a particular place – do they finally put aside various environmental risks and “bite the bullet”? I Googled “Are people concerned about air and water pollution when choosing a home” and didn’t see an immediate answer: Just like water quality minutiae, this is outside my skill set…
* However, I see a lot of people living in relatively near homes right next to I-80, which is nearly constantly noisy and -depending on monitoring site – variably polluted with gasses and particles… and a small fraction also live downwind of In&Out, but I digress…
* So my guess is that people won’t care if they live on top of or next to a poisoned site. “Americans’ kvetch constantly but… people want to sleep somewhere with locked doors and climate control.
* Speaking of noise pollution, the go-karts are really annoying.
***
I semi-intentionally used a bunch of common phrases above to highlight the need for a compassionate community to use language properly and honestly:
“Village Farms” is not obviously not farms – and people will just be taught or convince themselves that transferring corporate agricultural land to mostly single-mostly genetic family homes is inevitable. It’s also obviously not a village, but who in the USA even knows what a true village is any longer? Village Homes is also mostly not a village. (Imagine aliens in some Kurt Vonnegut book visiting Village Homes and not finding a village.) I lived in a place called Studio Village in Culver City (“The Heart of Screenland”) and live in a Village-named place now in Davis. People love villages, even if people in named villages aren’t in villages. So… while “West Davis Active Adult Community” was kind of a designation and the final name is related to some kind of worship of the Post WWII economy, curious if “Village Farms” will also be changed to e.g. “Compassion Acres” or more perversely and honestly “Downtown Merchants persuade Council to permanently ban paid parking as Village Farms residents drive their electric cars to shop in east Woodland Village not-Village”.
Let’s compare this to DISC I and II. Alan Pryor is a true hero in his role in defeating those exercises in multi-million dollar developer masturbation with government facilitation, and I would like to hear his answers and everyone else’s. For my part – and I lived across Pole Line from the proposed development for a year and way more peripherally – still in Davis – since October 2021…. because I see the stats in the Campus Travel Survey, I see how little biking there is at distances over 15 min from campus, and that’s for many people who can’t easily afford cars. I don’t see how the proposed density and availability of private vehicles, parked fare free in or next to their homes will ever result in a significant use of public transportation. I see no solution for 102 aside from closing it to through traffic except for ag-related business. People will drive to Oaktree Plaza, we know this, right?
If we build this, we just encourage Woodland to further expand south and perhaps in other directions, we will see SACOG to shrug its shoulders so hard in powerlessness that it will crush its own head… we should be joining Caltrans (and Amtrak) to sue the frack out of Woodland and other places so they stop expanding, as this gives a rather robust middle finger to any possibility of a robust regional public transportation network.
The water argument would be important if there were a wide range of environmentally-beneficial reasons to build it. There are not, so it’s not.
I wouldn’t be surprised if “Studio Village” is built on the site of a former movie studio. Perhaps experiencing the same fate as Hal Roach studios (and others, I understand).
Woodland won’t expand beyond its current southern boundary, without voter approval. (However, that boundary already includes the planned technology park that failed in Davis before even reaching voters, and moved what was left of it to Woodland – adding 1,600 planned housing units in the process).
Woodland will expand development westward, and toward the southeast (especially if the city successfully appeals the decision which denied them a taxpayer-funded flood wall). Actually, Alan P reminded me of this proposal, some time ago. If that ever moves forward, I’m going to call it the “North Natomas Floodzone” development, which is more accurate than any phony marketing name a developer comes up with.
https://www-davisenterprise-com.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.davisenterprise.com/news/judge-rules-against-city-of-woodland-in-flood-wall-dispute/
For sure, Woodland has never met a sprawling proposal that it didn’t like (so far). But at some point, they’re going to have to deal with voters there, as well. I don’t think it’s likely that they’d propose or approve expanding the southern boundary, anytime soon at least.
He is, as are the others who were sued by the developer and Dan Carson. (There might be a more accurate word than “sued”, but it’s essentially the same result.)
Todd
This is effectively an infill project between Wildhorse and North Davis. I’m at a loss as to what type of housing project will satisfy you that is financially feasible. We need to create another civic center outside of Downtown that is accessible by pedestrians, bikes and transit. The Nugget center is probably our most viable option and this development would make that possible.
Richard:
Thanks.
How in the heck is this “infill” when the “is” in between about six miles of mostly farmland, along a country rode that’s way over tasked with no plans for changes and a 30 min bike ride? Do you have other examples of this definition?
Downtown will be the expanded civic center. It’s historic, it’s close to campus, it’s right next to the train station on the high speed rail line… what does (cut down) Oak Tree Plaza offer? There is no offer, there’s nothing about changes there in plan which – if built up with entertainment and shopping – would need several levels of over-ground or under-ground parking both to facilitate that and accommodate all the people driving from I-80 to Village Farms and stoppping en route, of just driving because it’s so easy.
I have suggested apartments at Oak Tree Plaza and was told that it’s private etc, and there’s nothing to compell owners to do anything.
More recently I suggested that the only thing that MIGHT make sense is a mostly carfree development along the western edge of the area, adjacent to a new rail service on the tracks between Davis and Woodland, BUT that rail service – a kind of tram-train – would not work with level crossings on 3rd, 4th and 5th in Davis, Gibson in Woodland… so that means huge construction works depending on whether wants to go above the water table or closer to it.
Similarly – just as there’s no plan for 102 and no plan for robust transit as mentioned, there’s no plan for high quality cycling infrastructure towards Downtown (and southeast Woodland), unless of course rail service is cancelled completely… people on J St, L St, F St etc will not want to give up their street parking on both sides, necessary to build protected bike paths.
I see no “financially feasible”, unless of course there’s no sustainable etc considered.
” …what does (cut down) Oak Tree Plaza offer?”
A locally owned supermarket and a pharmacy within walking distance of the project.
Agreed. So long as we are just building large swaths of single family homes, we are de-facto building for automobiles and writing off our ability to ever have the kind of residential density where transit really shines economically.
( that said, Im okay with transit not being profitable for the city… we spend SO much money providing roads and parking for free, subsidizing cars to a significant extent… I’m okay with transit not breaking even either!)
Good to know the land is safe to build on. Thank you.
That issue is very different from the other issue being raise here which is “whether other forms of potable water are avaliable” which in my opinion is a total red herring.
Whether we build this development and consume water HERE, or whether we shoot it down and force the same housing to be built south of woodland instead drawing from the same surface water supply makes little difference.
That said, being water-smart in a state like California is always a good idea: so lets focus on building more densely on this site including a healthy number of apartments, townhomes, condos etc so that every dwelling unit provided doesn’t by definition have a front and rear lawn to water and maintain. I’m willing to bet that denser zoning could save 30% of our per capita water usage in landscaping usage alone.
It is a red herring to suggest that there’s actually any choice regarding what Woodland does. Though again, it’s not going to expand southward anytime soon (beyond the planned technology park, and its 1,600 planned housing units). It will expand westward, and toward the southeast (ironically, if they’re able to obtain taxpayer funding to control “unwanted” water).
I wonder if development interests make the same type of argument that you’re putting forth in places like Phoenix and Las Vegas? Evidence shows that this is exactly what they do. I’m personally disappointed that the Western U.S. had a “wet year”, since our collective memories are quite short. In some ways, I no longer view entirely-predictable environmental “crises” as “tragedies” – any more than I view Evil Knievel’s jumps over (ironically, again) a water fountain in Vegas as a “tragedy”.
The bolded part of your comment is likely true, except that I wouldn’t define California as a “water-smart” state in the first place. If it was, there wouldn’t be mandatory restrictions, year-after-year.
There can be no assumption that the Village Farms site is safe for development. It is surprising to see this article attempting to dismiss the significant concerns that have been raised in the past and recently regarding toxics contamination from the former City landfill site and the former City sewage treatment plant which are immediately adjacent to the Village Farms property. The sewerage treatment pools are still present. Many concerns were raised regarding this issue during the previous proposal of Covell Village in the Draft EIR which were not adequately addressed. This includes the inadequacy of having only 3 monitoring wells for the 31-acre landfill site, only 3 wells on site on the 400-acre Village Farms site and one more in the Wildhorse vicinity on the east side of Pole Line Road.
1) This adjacent former City landfill site is 31 acres and was unlined, therefore there was no barrier to prevent leakage from 300,000 tons of trash dumped which included commercial, industrial, as well as residential trash dumping. So, all kinds of toxic substances were dumped at this former City landfill site for decades that have been seeping into the underground water including vinyl chloride which is carcinogenic. Vinyl chloride, among other toxic chemicals, was documented to be found on the Village Farms site in the Dames and Moore study in 1997 from the previous Covell Center proposal EIR on the same land.
2) The Dames and Moore report stated that a groundwater SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) for the landfill site was done and they found that vinyl chloride (which is carcinogenic) was found which exceeded the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) allowed by the state drinking water standards. Nitrate, chloride and total dissolved solids also exceeded the MCL’s. Vinyl chloride was also found on the Village Farms site.
3) The former landfill site used burn pits for trash for several decades, including whatever toxics were in the unsorted trash.
4) No major clean -up has been done of the former City unlined landfill site, just inadequate monitoring which was reduced to only twice a year on only 3 wells on the large 31-acre landfill site and only 3 wells on the 400 acres Village Farms site, and 1 on the Wildhorse vicinity site.
5) It is notable that the former City landfill site was also used as police firing range and so there is plenty of lead from the ammunition on the site.
The concern here is if the City allowed the Village Farms site to be developed without significantly more toxics analysis, the consequences could be disastrous. Toxics on the site could result with residents becoming sick from toxics, the City would be liable for approving the project and subject to being sued. Ultimately, Davis residents would wind up paying for that lawsuit via their taxes. Why would the City allow such risk to the community by allowing this site to move forward without far more toxics analysis? The City’s monitoring, so far have focused on the former City landfill site, not the adjacent Village Farms site, and as we all know, toxics move in groundwater.
The Wallace and Kuhl report complained of not getting summary information from the City:
“The City’s activity is limited to the sample collection and contracting for laboratory analyses. The City has prepared no summary tables for the analysis results and prepared no reports of findings.”
In addition, the Wallace and Kuhl report includes significant disclaimers such as:
“No recommendation is made as to the suitability of the property for any purpose. The result of the investigation does not preclude the possibility that materials currently, or in the future, defined as hazardous are present on the site.”
Furthermore, this Wallace and Kuhl report was done before there was any knowledge that the adjacent Village Farms site was being considered for residential development. A residential development site, obviously, would need more thorough analysis for toxics for safety reasons, as compared to a dormant landfill site, which also has not had any major clean up actions.
How many people would be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a home on a site immediately adjacent to an unlined former landfill site and sewer treatment plant which has not had any major clean up and not had an adequate toxics assessment and to risk the health consequences to them and their families?
The City has a responsibility to require far more toxics analysis than the minimal information they have for the 400-acre Village Farms site which would have disastrous consequences to the residents living on it and the community as a whole due to the toxics and legal liability which would become a financial liability.
The Village Farms site has a multitude of problems including an enormous 200-acre floodplain taking up half of the 400-acre site, no safe bike/pedestrian access across Covell Blvd. or F Street, enormous infrastructure costs which would cost the City as well, and already enormous traffic impacts currently. But then to add 1,400 more housing units at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. intersection? That would be insane with traffic backing up and spilling over into the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as significant air quality impacts from the cars backed up.
The bottom line is that the Village Farms site has many significant problems, as it has in the past, which is why it was voted down by the Davis voters in its previous Covell Village version in 2005. This Village Farms proposal is no different, except the problems are even worse, such as traffic, plus the current proposal is primarily large expensive housing units. It would be irresponsible of the City to place the Village Farms project on the ballot with its plethora of problems.
Also, how many would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a home, find out later that there’s toxics emanating from beneath the soil, and then NOT sue the city for approving it? Or for approving development in a floodplain, for that matter.
Ask Erin Brokovich, about that. And those people did not have the financial resources that some Yuppie moving in from the Bay Area would have, to sue the city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich
Or, maybe ask the people in Flint, Michigan if the costs of a given community’s problems remain financially-confined to that community.
As a side note, if there are any McMansions proposed for this site, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re located in the back of the property – nearest the potential toxins and floodplain. And in that case, we’re talking about houses costing more than a million. You definitely don’t want to subsequently deal with the consequences of toxins and floodplains with THAT crowd. Though I don’t like using the word, I suspect that half of them would be named “Karen”.
These issues were raised by many concerned citizens during the Covell Village EIR review, including by Pam Nieberg and myself. Pam served as president of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group for 28 years, and she worked in the toxicology field for over 38 years and has expertise in this subject. She, like I, see that there has not been adequate monitoring or adequate analysis for this 400-acre Village Farms site and so the very same concerns stand, including toxics, traffic, floodplain, unaffordable housing, and unsafe bike/pedestrian access issues. She and I collaborated for this initial response to this article.
Don’t know that any of that is actually true, but it’s not (currently) the city’s responsibility to provide water to the site.
It would be, if it’s incorporated into the city. Permanently, along with all of the other city-provided services.
One other key difference is that (in general), there is no “choice” but to provide water for urban uses. In contrast, farms can be left fallow, if needed.
I guess I’ll take Don’s word for the situation, in that there is never a need for mandatory water restrictions for the city of Davis, but that the city just “goes along” with what the state wants, regardless. Do I have that right? And if so, it sounds quite “familiar” regarding the RHNA requirements, as well.