Flooding is always a topic of discussion when new developments are proposed in Davis. However, when it comes to the Village Farms Davis Project, concerns about catastrophic flood risk are not supported by the data.
The reality is that Davis is at relatively low flood risk, and Village Farms will not meaningfully increase that risk. Instead of succumbing to alarmist rhetoric, we should focus on the facts—and those facts show that Village Farms is a safe and well-planned development.
One of the biggest misconceptions about Davis is that it is prone to major river flooding like cities along the Sacramento River. This is simply not true. Unlike Sacramento or West Sacramento—where levee failures could trigger deep, rapid inundation—Davis’ flood hazards are largely shallow sheet flooding from intense rainstorms and localized drainage issues.
According to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), most of Davis is outside of high-risk flood zones. In fact, over 80% of the city is in FEMA’s “Zone X (unshaded),” meaning there is minimal flood risk. Only a small fraction of Davis (<5%) is in the 100-year floodplain (Zone A/AE), and even fewer areas are subject to deep or persistent flooding.
Furthermore, Davis does not have a major river running through it, and the city’s flat topography (25–60 feet elevation) means that even in extreme storm events, water spreads out rather than accumulating in deep flood conditions.
What About Village Farms?
Opponents of Village Farms claim that the project site is in a floodplain and could increase local flooding. But let’s break that down:
- Yes, part of the Village Farms site is in FEMA’s Zone A (100-year floodplain). However, this does not mean the site is at constant risk of serious flooding. Flooding in this area is generally shallow and slow-moving—not the kind of deep, rapid flooding seen near levees or major rivers.
- Even in the rare event of a 100-year flood (1% annual chance), floodwaters are expected to be relatively shallow.
- The project includes flood mitigation measures, including a detention basin, stormwater channels, and elevated building pads to ensure that new homes and infrastructure are protected.
The 200-year flood scenario (0.5% annual chance), which is the state’s stricter standard for urban areas, has also been accounted for. California’s Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) requires new developments to meet this higher standard, and Village Farms will comply by elevating structures above potential flood levels.
Some have raised concerns that Village Farms will increase flooding for surrounding areas, particularly East Davis Ponding. However, these concerns do not hold up to scrutiny:
- The project’s hydraulic modeling shows a minuscule 0.036-foot (less than half an inch) rise in peak water surface levels in the East Davis Ponding area.
- The stormwater detention basin and rerouted Channel A will ensure that runoff does not exceed pre-development levels. In other words, the project is designed to prevent increased flood risk downstream.
- Stormwater infrastructure upgrades will further improve flood resilience in the area.
A Smarter Conversation About Flood Risk
Flooding should always be taken seriously, but we should not let exaggerated fears dictate development policy. The facts are clear:
✔ Davis is at relatively low flood risk compared to other Central Valley cities.
✔ Over 80% of the city is outside the 500-year floodplain.
✔ Village Farms is taking proactive steps to mitigate flood concerns.
✔ Stormwater improvements will ensure that runoff is properly managed.
Davis needs more housing, and projects like Village Farms provide a thoughtful, well-planned approach to growth. Instead of inflating flood risks, we should focus on data-driven solutions that allow for responsible development while maintaining the city’s strong flood protections.
Village Farms is not a flood disaster waiting to happen—it is a carefully designed, sustainable project that will enhance Davis’ future without compromising flood safety.
David,
Actually, this articles writing and style sounds very much like it was written by the Village Farms developer’s team. This is not an objective article; it is an advertisement for Village Farms and trying to dismiss a clearly serious issue of the flooding risks from Village Farms. Numerous comments on the Village Farms Draft EIR were submitted with major concerns regarding the flooding potential from Village Farms including from hydrology experts. The magnitude of the Village Farms flood plain is enormous floodplain covering at least half of the 400+-acre project.
Furthermore, California now has legislation making clear that the State will no longer financially bail out cities who are foolish enough to build on enormous flood plains like Village Farms has. On top of that we have climate change bringing us more frequent extreme weather events like the chain of atmospheric rivers we experienced not long ago this winter. The last thing Davis needs to set itself up for a chronic flooding situation from Village Farms since the City has enough budgetary issues, plus the damage and devastation that would result to Davis residents and their homes.
The only thing overstated here is the Vanguard’s obvious advocacy for the Village Farms project despite its many serious issues including, but not limited to, the enormous flood plain and flooding risks, the toxics, and lack of safe access issues are just a few.
Actually the info is from the Draft EIR and FEMA. neither agree with your conclusion
“Instead of succumbing to alarmist rhetoric …”
No shortage of that. I’m glad you are starting to call it out.
David,
The Village Farms Draft EIR is flawed and seriously inadequate as has been covered by an article I wrote, and that the Planning Commission covered as well. So, don’t count of the Village Farms Draft EIR as “reliable” source back up your claims, since it failed miserably. That is evident since there were over 200 comment letters submitted on it.
Village Farms enormous flood plain covering over half of its 400+ acre land is a FEMA Zone A Flood Hazard:
What are the highest risk FEMA flood zones?
FEMA’s flood zones with the highest risk of flooding are those that start with the letters “A” or “V”. These are known as Special Flood Hazard Areas.
What to know about FEMA Zone A Flood Hazard areas:
1) Property owners with federally backed mortgages in Zone A are required to have flood insurance.
2) Homeowners insurance doesn’t cover flood damage, so flood insurance is important.
3) Insurance premiums for Zone A properties are typically higher than those for low-risk zones.
4) The specific premium depends on the insurance provider and the property.
As mentioned in the article: “part of the Village Farms site is in FEMA’s Zone A (100-year floodplain). However, this does not mean the site is at constant risk of serious flooding. Flooding in this area is generally shallow and slow-moving—not the kind of deep, rapid flooding seen near levees or major rivers.”
Why do you believe that the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are inadequate?
Why do you believe they are adequate when hydrologist experts have commented raising serious concerns regarding the Village Farms Draft EIR hydology issues?
Can you list the hydrologists and send me their comments. Thanks.
They are in the public record David. Why can’t you get them yourself?
I thought she might have them on hand, whereas i would have to request them from the city
One was in the article I wrote on the Planning Commission comments. Further, the ridiculous mitigation of the project raising the the height of its Village Farms houses one foot, that does not help the surrounding neighborhoods where their houses cannot be raised one foot off the ground. Why does Village Farms need to raise the height of its houses one foot higher off the ground if there is not going to be any flooding issues?
Eileen: I didn’t say there weren’t flooding issues. I specified what they were and what they weren’t.
Eileen Samitz has the better argument.
David Greenwald said … “Furthermore, Davis does not have a major river running through it, and the city’s flat topography (25–60 feet elevation) means that even in extreme storm events, water spreads out rather than accumulating in deep flood conditions.”
This is a time when it is a shame Bill Marshall is no longer with us. He was an engineering expert on this subject.
With that said, he and I spent numerous hours discussing Davis flooding and flood risk over the years and my comments herein reflect the content of those discussions.
(1) Davis does not have a major river running through it, but it does have a major water course running right through its heart … Willow Slough, which is fed by tributaries to the west of Davis, and at the City’s western boundary is changed into an underground drainpipe that goes under Davis’ central core and feeds into Channel A just west of the Village Farms site. In a major rain/flooding event, Will informed me that Channel A will be filled to over 90% capacity just from the output of the underground drainpipe. The runoff from the Cannery site bring that 90% up to or above 100%. Therefore, there is nowhere in Channel A for the runoff from Village Farms to go other than to be flood waters in the community.
In addition, I suggest you contact Yolo County to learn the history of the maintenance of Channel A between the City Limits and the City Wetlands. Due to negligent/deferred maintenance by the City the integrity of Channel A was breached by a relatively minor runoff situation and a farmer’s field was inundated and its agricultural contents/produce was damaged.
I have to leave for the rest of the day, but here’s a quick response based again on my reading of the FEMA and CEQA…
While Willow Slough and Channel A play a role in stormwater management, they do not equate to a major river system in terms of flood risk. Unlike cities built along major rivers that face catastrophic flooding due to rising water levels, Davis’ topography and drainage infrastructure are designed to disperse water over a broader area rather than concentrating it into deep flood zones.
Both FEMA and the CEQA are clear about what the flood risk is – slow moving sheets of water and what it isn’t – rapid and deep river zone flooding. This is all stuff that can be mitigated.
David, reading is fundamental .., what was/is it about my words above … “Davis does not have a major river running through it, but it does have a major water course running right through its heart … Willow Slough, which is fed by tributaries to the west of Davis” … that you didn’t understand?
Now regarding your words “This is all stuff that can be mitigated” where can the public access and review that mitigation plan? Or is it a “trust us” mitigation plan?
How much wider and deeper will channel A have to become?
4. Recommendations for Reducing Flood Risks
To further strengthen flood mitigation efforts, the following enhancements should be considered:
✅ Increase detention basin storage capacity: Ensure the basin can handle storm events beyond the 200-year flood, considering climate change projections.
✅ Enhance stormwater conveyance: Upgrade Pole Line Road culverts to prevent overflow into East Davis Ponding.
✅ Mandate long-term monitoring: Regularly assess detention basin performance, sediment buildup, and groundwater quality.
✅ Coordinate with FEMA early: Secure CLOMR approval as soon as possible to avoid delays.
Final Assessment
• The Village Farms Davis Project flood risk is moderate but mitigation measures should be strengthened.
• If detention basins and stormwater BMPs are not properly maintained, the project could exacerbate flooding and water quality issues.
• FEMA approvals, groundwater protections, and infrastructure upgrades are critical to minimizing risk.
Those are good, but they don’t answer the question I asked, which was how much wider and deeper will Channel A have to become. The Pole line culvert recommendation doesn’t have any net positive effect if the water those culverts is gathering simply overtops an already full Channel A.
The project plans include realigning and expanding Channel A to accommodate a calculated drainage capacity of approximately 1,465 cubic feet per second (CFS), to accomodate additional inflows
Do they explain how they got to that flow increase value, and will the increased capacity be only on the project site or all the way to the Davis Wetlands?
Not a ton of detail…
According to the EIR, engineers conducted a comprehensive hydrological analysis to determine the necessary capacity of Channel A. They considered factors such as the project’s size, land use changes, soil types, and historical rainfall data. They then modeled various storm scenarios to estimate that a capacity of 1,465 CFS would be required to effectively manage stormwater runoff from the development. Beyond that I would read the hydrology chapter of the Draft EIR.
The planned improvements to Channel A are primarily focused within the project site. The realignment and expansion aim to handle the increased runoff generated by the new development. However, the Draft EIR also assesses the downstream impacts to ensure that the modifications do not adversely affect areas beyond the project boundaries, including the Davis Wetlands
It notes that if necessary, additional measures may be implemented downstream to maintain the overall integrity of the stormwater management system.
These planned modifications are detailed in the Draft EIR
David says: “It notes that if necessary, additional measures may be implemented downstream to maintain the overall integrity of the stormwater management system.”
Who decides if they’re necessary (and how is it decided), and who would pay for them?
Sounds similar to the “plan” regarding a grades-separated bike/pedestrian path, “if feasible”.
“ Who decides if they’re necessary (and how is it decided), and who would pay for them?”
The developer pays for all of these
Thanks – that seems to be a partial answer.
But again, who decides what’s a “problem”, and what if it doesn’t occur until sometime after the development is completed?
There is no single decider – ultimately it will go through a process and changes. If you want a single answer council decides what goes to the voters and the voters determine approval.
Thank you David for peeling back the onion.
The problem with only doing the modifications to Channel A up to the project boundary is the same as what happens currently on I-80 when the road narrows by a lane each as it does west of Davis just before the Pedrick exit. The result is back pressure on the wider portion and traffic grinds to a crawl (often a halt). However, water can’t halt like traffic does. Its reaction to the throttling-down bottleneck is to rise and overflow its banks. The project needs to mitigate that Channel A flooding risk all the way to the Wetlands. If they don’t then all the landowners and Wildhorse homeowners to the east of the project will be in a position to sue the developers for the damages that the project-caused flooding does to their property. One way to quantify that financial risk is to determine the annual Flood Insurance premiums that Wildhorse residents will have to pay each year because the project has put them into a higher flood risk zone. Right now the annual FEMA flood insurance premium is at least $1,011 per year per dwelling, and frequently more than that.
David,
It sounds like you are trying to be a hydrologist, but you are not. The experts in this field have raised major concerns about the Village Farms hydrology issues and also look at the history that Matt has provided as well. As usual you try to dismiss and/or minimize where you have no good arguments. You are going to advocate and try to excuse all of Village Farms serious issues is clear and continue to write “thoughtful ” articles about Village Farms, as in this article where it says: ” projects like Village Farms provide a thoughtful, well-planned approach to growth.”
By the way this following sentence is is from the Village Farms developers website:
https://villagefarmsdavis.com/#resources
“In November 2025, this thoughtful neighborhood project proposal will be presented to Davis voters at the ballot box under measure J/R/D”.
What a thoughtful coincidence…