As the Davis City Council prepares to decide whether the Village Farms project should go before voters, the debate over flood risk figures to become the central argument against the project — it along with traffic was a huge component of the opposition to Covell Village in 2005.
Planning Commissioner Greg Rowe laid out his reasoning for voting no in a recent Davis Enterprise commentary, pointing to climate change, FEMA flood designations and what he described as an untested engineering approach. His concerns are serious and worth engaging.
But— as I argued in May, when examined closely, the flood risks cited in opposition to Village Farms are being overstated in ways that risk distorting the broader housing discussion in Davis.
Rowe explained that he “voted against the EIR because of procedural irregularities, and didn’t support the project because its location is vulnerable to flooding.”
He framed his decision around two core claims: that climate change dramatically increases flood risk beyond what current regulatory frameworks can reliably address, and that the Village Farms mitigation strategy amounts to a large-scale experiment that could place residents in harm’s way.
The problem is not that flood risk exists — such risk exists everywhere in the Central Valley, including much of Davis. The problem is how that risk is being characterized and whether it is being weighed against empirical data, modern regulatory standards and the very real consequences of failing to build housing.
Rowe correctly notes that the Central Valley has experienced devastating floods and that climate change is expected to increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events.
He argues that FEMA flood maps “don’t convey a complete picture, are often outdated and don’t reflect the impact of increased precipitation induced by warmer temperatures.”
He further relies on the city’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which warns that the “extent and flood depth of the 100-year floodplain may increase as climate change causes more intense precipitation.”
It’s hard to argue with these points..
Climate change is increasing hydrologic uncertainty. Floodplain boundaries are not static. Extreme storms are becoming more likely. None of that, however, means that existing flood management frameworks are irrelevant or that development on land currently designated for urban use is inherently reckless.
One of the most persistent misconceptions in the Village Farms debate is the idea that Davis faces flood risks comparable to cities built along major rivers protected by levees — that is not the case.
Unlike Sacramento or West Sacramento, Davis is not situated on a large river system where levee failure could result in rapid, deep inundation. Davis’ flood risks are dominated by shallow sheet flooding from intense rain events and localized drainage constraints, not catastrophic river flooding.
FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps reflect that reality. More than 80 percent of Davis is located in Zone X (unshaded), meaning areas with minimal flood risk. Less than 5 percent of the city lies within the 100-year floodplain.
Even within Special Flood Hazard Areas, the expected flooding is generally shallow and slow-moving. A designation as Zone A or AE does not mean frequent flooding or a high likelihood of life-threatening conditions; it reflects a 1 percent annual chance of floodwaters reaching relatively limited depths.
Rowe emphasizes that a property in the Special Flood Hazard Area has “a 26% chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage.”
While technically correct, that statistic is frequently misunderstood.
It does not describe the likelihood of catastrophic flooding, nor does it differentiate between nuisance flooding and dangerous inundation. It also does not account for modern flood mitigation requirements that apply to new development.
California does not rely solely on FEMA’s 100-year standard. Under state law, new urban development must be protected against a 200-year flood event. That standard is specifically designed to account for greater uncertainty and increased risk in urban areas.
Village Farms is required to meet that higher threshold, and the project’s design reflects that obligation through elevated building pads, detention basins and controlled drainage infrastructure.
Rowe characterizes these measures as “an untested experiment.” In reality, large-scale grading, elevation of building pads and construction of detention basins are standard engineering practices throughout California, including in communities far more flood-prone than Davis.
These strategies are not ad hoc improvisations; they are regulated, peer-reviewed and implemented under strict state and federal oversight.
The argument that Village Farms’ mitigation approach is fundamentally different from other urban flood management efforts does not hold up.
Cities across the Central Valley routinely rely on engineered solutions to reduce flood risk while accommodating growth.
To suggest that such methods are inherently unsafe in Davis, but acceptable elsewhere, requires a much stronger evidentiary showing than has been offered.
Rowe also relies heavily on the ARkStorm scenario, which models an extreme, multi-month atmospheric river event capable of producing flooding beyond the 100-year level.
He notes that researchers concluded “the risks associated with infrequent but extreme California floods have been underestimated,” and that climate change is likely increasing the likelihood of such events.
That research is important for statewide emergency preparedness and long-term infrastructure planning. It is far less useful as a project-level veto tool. ARkStorm represents a plausible but very low-probability scenario that would overwhelm flood protection systems across much of California, including areas already developed and densely populated. If ARkStorm modeling becomes the controlling standard for land use decisions, it would call into question development across vast portions of the state, not just Village Farms.
The question policymakers must answer is not whether extreme floods are theoretically possible, but whether a project complies with existing safety standards and reasonably manages foreseeable risks.
On that metric, Village Farms meets or exceeds applicable requirements.
There is also a broader policy context that cannot be ignored.
Davis faces a severe housing shortage that has pushed prices upward, displaced workers and contributed to regional inequities. Every major housing proposal encounters opposition rooted in one risk or another, whether traffic, air quality, water supply or flooding.
Over time, the cumulative effect of elevating speculative risks above documented needs has been to sharply constrain housing supply.
Rowe proposes alternative approaches, including a smaller development outside the FEMA floodplain or limiting residential construction to land south of Channel A.
Those alternatives may marginally reduce flood exposure, but they also substantially reduce housing capacity and do not solve the structural problem that Davis has far fewer homes than jobs and continues to rely on surrounding communities to absorb its workforce.
Risk avoidance carries its own consequences.
When housing is not built, workers are forced into longer commutes that increase greenhouse gas emissions, families are priced out of the community, younger residents leave, affordability worsens, and the resulting harms are not abstract but measurable and ongoing.
Development can never be made completely risk-free.
As Rowe acknowledges, “development can’t be made completely safe from stormwater and flood risks.”
That reality applies to nearly every city in California, where the choice is not between perfect safety and reckless endangerment, but between managing risk responsibly and allowing fear to paralyze decision-making.
Village Farms is not a flood disaster waiting to happen, but a regulated, engineered housing project designed to meet stringent state standards in a city that faces relatively modest flood hazards by Central Valley norms, and treating it as uniquely dangerous does not align with the data and risks undermining serious efforts to address Davis’ housing crisis.
The debate over Village Farms ultimately reflects a deeper question about how Davis approaches growth, risk and responsibility, because if every proposed project is judged against the most extreme imaginable scenario rather than the best available evidence, the city will continue to fall short on housing while claiming the mantle of caution — a posture that is not prudence but paralysis, with costs that are already being felt.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Flood risk can be almost fully mitigated by purchasing insurance.
Really, really expensive insurance
I have recorded major rainfall and regional flooding events since our business opened in 1981:
January 3 – 5 1982
February 1986 – 10” in 11 days
March 1995
New Year 1997
New Year’s Eve 2006
January 3 – 24, 2017
12/26/22 – 1/18/23: atmospheric river storms, 13” of rain, powerful winds
During none of those events did Davis experience significant flooding damage. No evacuations were needed. There was no disruption of sewer services. Emergency services focused on power outages and tree damage from wind and saturated soils. Because of our slight elevation and drainage pattern, water flowed past Davis. Other parts of the Valley and wine country were significantly impacted.
Flood control in our area is mitigated by six ponds. Village Farms would basically add another one.
I have no quarrel with Greg Rowe’s basic analysis. Climate change appears to be increasing the frequency and intensity of these storm systems (though it would be hard to surpass the 1861-2 floods). The question may be whether the whole valley is prepared for that increase. But of all the areas potentially affected, Davis is better situated than the areas north and east of us.
DS say, “Climate change appears to be increasing the frequency and intensity of these storm systems”
“Appears” is strong scientific method. I’m sure I’d have a masters instead of a BS at UCD if only I’d thought of the ‘appears’ method and pitched that for my thesis :-|
DS say, “(though it would be hard to surpass the 1861-2 floods)”
But you can bet the D-CAN would blame those floods on ‘climate change’ if they were around then.
How about this: The scientific consensus is that climate change is increasing the intensity of major storm systems and contributing to more extreme precipitation when they occur.
“California does not rely solely on FEMA’s 100-year standard. Under state law, new urban development must be protected against a 200-year flood event. That standard is specifically designed to account for greater uncertainty and increased risk in urban areas.”
Really? How do you explain the development that’s continuing to occur in Natomas “Basin”, Plumas “Lake”, etc.?
Remember the near-failure of the Orville dam about 5 years ago, causing mass evacuation for that entire area?
The state ROUTINELY allows housing in high-risk zones, whether it’s fire, flood, or on top of earthquake faults. The entire region is protected by dirt levees built by laborers more than 100 years ago.
As far as the flooding expected in Village Farms, my understanding is that the city assumes responsibility for it (if it’s incorporated into the city), as well as what would happen “downstream” of it (through Wildhorse) if it’s approved.
Or, if toxics would then be exposed as a result of the re-engineering, and drift off-site with the modified drainage system.
Though in my personal opinion, this isn’t what’s going to cause the development to be rejected.
I don’t know enough to comment on the engineering they would do around the channel on the property, the raising of the entire site (using soil sourced from a new drainage pit as part of that channel), etc. I believe the dig pit (similar to an open-pit mine) is what they would then essentially call a re-engineered “vernal pool”.
The proposed “pit” kind of reminds me of the “Hole in the Head” out in Bodega, the site of a proposed nuclear reactor that was abandoned after they dug the “pit” for it. (Though truth be told, it looks kind of nice, now.)
More ignorance from Ron O. The Army Corps of Engineers has been fortifying the levees along the Sacramento and American Rivers in highly visible projects to reduce the flood risk to one in 200 years. (However, I agree that the flood risk may be changing with climate change.) But again, please be up to speed on such claims that these developments are occurring in places not consistent with the current legal requirements.
What amazes me is that people who want growth suddenly become climate scientists and hyrdrologic engineering specialists who happen to come up with conclusions that support the development. Not arguing either way, just observing. Actually very similar on so many subjects. Especially strong scientific words are used by these ‘experts’ like “almost”, “slight” and “appears to”.
People can do what they want, but they should be informed and maybe check it out. When the floodwaters in the infamous 1955 storms inundated the low lying areas of Palo Alto and water flooded the houses on the next street over and the water came up to the doorstep on Christmas Eve, my dad sold the house and moved to higher ground. The new house was only a few feet higher in elevation, but that’s all that was needed. Sixty years later, after tens of millions in hydrologic engineering and construction on the local creeks and pumping stations by the City and County, similar hydrologic conditions formed, and that area of Palo Alto flooded again!
Being near the Channel A and closer to Willow Slough, by definition you are in the low area where water drains. But we live in a society where building houses and even stadiums on active fault zones is “OK” in the name of housing and profit, so what’s a little ‘shallow’ floodwater every few decades?
“What amazes me is that people who want growth suddenly become climate scientists and hyrdrologic engineering specialists who happen to come up with conclusions that support the development. ”
And people who don’t want growth suddenly become climate scientists and hyrdrologic engineering specialists who happen to come up with conclusions that oppose the development.
You are making my point :-|
I’m also channeling Keith in suggesting the bias goes both ways.
You are both correct overall, regarding this. This is also the reason that I’m not that involved with trying to figure out the reality of the toxics, flooding, vernal pools, former owl sites, finding faults in the EIR, etc.
Ultimately, I question the fake housing shortage in the first place. And however that’s defined, whether or not anything should be “done” about it, as well as the effectiveness of various proposals in addressing the fake shortage, etc.
We already know that paving over a vast amount of farmland land adjacent to the city is NOT a benefit to it (in any way, shape or form), so there’ have to be a pretty compelling reason to do so.
In other words, the “burden of proof” is on the housing activists. And many of those “usual suspects” aren’t even on board with this proposal in the first place. We’ve seen that over-and-over again on this blog and elsewhere.
Greg Rowe himself is not what I’d call an “anti-housing” activist, either.
Ron O
We’ve already addressed your false assertion with no empirical evidence that there is no housing shortage. As we’ve shown repeatedly, the excessive prices are the symptom of the housing shortage. No further discussion warranted.
I was staying out of this but did someone mention my name?
“I’m also channeling Keith in suggesting the bias goes both ways.”
So you are both-ways-ing the issue :-|
Well, here we go again with dismiss, ignore, and deflect the relevant issues by the Vanguard. We already went through this exercise last March in David’s first attempt to dismiss the serious Village Farms flooding potential issues where David tries to assume expertise in an area which he has no expertise.
I am not a flood control expert but I certainly believe experts who have had real life experience in this area such as Greg Rowe who was a professional environmental planner and analyst for his entire career who actually worked on issues like this. Other professional hydrologists have also raised serious concerns formally in their EIR comments about the flooding potential that Village Farms bring with it as well as toxics exposure. The toxics exposure issue is due to the adjacent unlined Old City landfill leaking high levels of carcinogenic PFAS “forever chemicals” and other chemicals contaminants in high levels to Village Farms. Then there are all the other issues such as unsafe access, massive traffic, massive infrastructure costs, unprotected vernal pools so far, and Unaffordable housing.
So, let’s talk about your favorite subject David, affordable housing which Village Farms continues to side-step. How do you justify advocating for a project where 80% of the housing will be minimum of $740,000 per their own BAE fiscal report? That means a minimum house payment of $6,000 per month for the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD and the many other fees for the cheapest Village Farms market rate home? The vast majority of local workers and families with young kids can’t this so Village Farms not going to bring 700 kids as the School Distinct would like to believe. It is a fantasy.
On top of this the Village Farms developer first refusing to dedicate the 18.6 acres of land for affordable housing that is required by our City Municipal Code, and instead offering ONLY HALF of the land required being 9-9.5 acres. So, the developer could not manage to find 18.6 acres on his enormous 498-acres project? I mean really? And the City was going along with this “giveaway” arrangement originally. Talk about special favors and privileged treatment to this developer who is a major partner of Tandem Properties who own 13 apartment complexes in Davis charging high rents.
But then, under public pressure exposing this stunt, the developer finally conceded to dedicating 16 acres, but not agreeing to assure that any of the affordable housing will get built. On top of that the developer is not even defining WHERE this 16 acres would be located on the project, and it may wind up being 4 different parcels. Well, that does not help the situation either since that means 4 affordable housing projects need to try to find funding to try to get built instead of one or maybe two.
Further, this same developer, John Whitcombe, has not delivered on his Nishi project that he got approved 7 years ago because he can’t get his promised grade-separated crossing built. Yet, we are supposed to believe he will get TWO grade-separated crossings built at Village Farms? And another “giveaway” is that this developer, so far, is obligated to pay only 20% of the costs of these two grade-separated crossings for his Village Farms project. The community will wind up subsidizing these multi-million dollar grade-separated crossings for this developers Village Farms project.
So, the City is fast-tracking this disastrous Village Farms project to get it to the developers desired premature vote this June, so he can try to get entitlements to increase its value, like Nishi. He then could “flip” these projects to some other naive developer groups.
David, the hypocrisy of your support for Village Farms, a project which is not helping to bring affordable housing is simply astonishing. Then, you try to sidestep this issue by claiming the serious flooding potential issue is being “overstated”. I mean, really?
But obviously, the Vanguard has taken a “build anything” regardless of the long-term health, welfare, and safety impacts, lack of affordable housing, and other consequences to the community, as well as the potential massive liability costs to the City into the future.
“How do you justify advocating for a project where 80% of the housing will be minimum of $740,000 per their own BAE fiscal report? That means a minimum house payment of $6,000 per month for the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD and the many other fees for the cheapest Village Farms market rate home?”
There are lots of people who can afford that payment. Of course they may be move up buyers or two income families, professionals. Perhaps they were lucky enough to have access to family money or maybe they made a big score in A.I. or crypto. In the land of abundance there are many possibilities.
Without even looking at what’s for sale at the moment, I’m pretty sure they could buy one RIGHT NOW in Davis that’s a better deal than a shoebox in Village Farms.
And who exactly is claiming that they’d be $740K by the time they’d actually be build, if approved?
And no doubt, with fewer (or no) Mello Roos, in a better location, better materials, larger lot, mature landscaping, (and *gasp*) a garage that everyone pretends is not an insisted-upon feature these days, especially for families.
Most home sales consist of “pre-owned” housing.
If anyone is actually waiting around for Village Farms to build them a cheap house, these are not the people I’d want to take financial advice from.
Ron, I agree with you that there are plenty of people (in the Bay Area especially) who can afford that payment. However, there is no progress on Davis housing social justice if we add all those unaffordable houses and no affordable houses. Are you not concerned about making progress in righting Davis’ classist (originally de jure and still de facto racist) history with respect to housing equity?
There are lots of people right here in Davis who can make that payment.
Ron, what proportion of those “people right here in Davis” are looking to purchase a new home?
What proportion of those “people right here in Davis” who are actually looking to purchase a new home, have DJUSD-age children?
But with those practical questions posed, let’s look at the moral questions your statement carries with it … specifically that you are willing to leave unaddressed Davis’ current classist and historically racist housing realities that functionally exclude from Davis homeownership the very modest income people who if they owned a home in Davis would represent progress in doing something about our active housing discrimination. Do you not care about social justice? Do you not care about social justice in housing?
“(in the Bay Area especially)”
It’s like the Godwin’s Law of Davis growth discussions.
Why does it bother you that people point out this obvious fact?
Why does it bother people that other people want to come here?
What is bothersome is that you like so many people in Davis’ past want to give rich people special privilege to cut ahead in line in front of 1) the people who have historically been discriminated against, and 2) the moderate income people who provide use each day with the services of our lives and teach our children and grandchildren in our schools.
The public records of housing costs in Davis show us that a $740,000 house purchase in Davis with the 90% mortgage Village Farms’ economic consultant EPS included in their report costs over $81,000 a year in housing costs. Using the 30% rule that EPS also includes in its report, that means a minimum household income of over $270,000. How many DJUSD teachers … especially young teachers who would be parents in a young family … make $135,000 a year (so that together they make the needed $270,000)?
I really don’t know why you want to perpetuate discrimination Ron. It’s a puzzlement.
For the record the $81,000 of annual housing expenses fall into the following annual categories and values. That $81,000 goes up if there are any home maintenance and repairs expenses. $81,000 per year is $6,750 per month.
EXPENSES and AMOUNTS
mortgage payments, $50,515
PMI (mortgage balance life) Insurance, $2,285
property taxes, $7,400
parcel taxes,
DJUSD 2000 Bond $89
DJUSD 2018 Bond $414
DJUSD CFD #1 $155
DJUSD CFD #2 $2,093
DJUSD Measure G $227
DJUSD Measure N $768
Los Rios CCD $148
East Davis Fire $278
Davis Special Library Tax $121
Davis Open Space Tax $24
Davis Parks Tax $55
CFD taxes, $2,224
HOA fees, $1,512
homeowners insurance, $2,500
FEMA flood insurance, $1,100
home maintenance and repairs
utilities
gas, $1,424
electricity, $3,944
water, $1,992
sewer, $613
storm sewer, $130
municipal service $112
public safety, $88
garbage/recycling $706
green waste $91
Total $81,007 @ 30% equals
a needed Household Income of $270,023
Don, it is a fact of life that average household incomes and typical household wealth in the Bay Area are both significantly (some would say massively) higher than average household incomes and typical household wealth in Davis. Do you take exception to that economic reality?
Bay Area ex-pats (many of whom are UC Davis alums who went to the Bay Area to pursue a career and make their fortune) are fundamentally remaking the real estate value realities here in Davis. Because the lions share of those ex-pats are either empty nesters or never had children, they do not receive any personal value from Davis’ excellent school system. They are willing to bid up the sale price of for sale Davis homes based on the other (non school district) values they believe life in Davis brings them when compared to the alternative of continuing to live in the Bay Area. Excluding the value delivered by schools from the housing valuation equation is a new economic paradyme.
Everything you just said is also true of people from San Diego and Los Angeles. Yet commenters on the Vanguard uniquely single out the Bay Area.
Ron G.,
Can’t say I agree, particularly this high cost of housing for local workers and local families with young kids. Your “lucky” people are a small number of exceptions, and not the majority of local folks, in particular.
You provide no supporting evidence that its only a small number of exceptions.
Ron, the annual US Census Jobs report tells us the following:
In Davis, California, the average (mean) household income is around $127,802, while the median household income is about $87,421, based on 2023 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and related sources. The difference highlights that a smaller number of very high-income households pulls the average up compared to the typical household income (median).
How does that compare to the $270,000 household income needed to cover the $81,000 of annual housing expenses incurred when purchasing a $740,000 home in Davis.
?
Ron G
I’ve repeatedly presented evidence here that we have 17,000 residents living in more expensive housing commuting out of Davis to work elsewhere and 17,000 who work in Davis who can’t afford to live here. It appears that we’ve lost 4,500 residents who use to afford to live and work here and now commute into Davis and UCD. You can read the analysis here in detail: https://mcubedecon.com/2025/11/24/reconciling-census-on-the-map-commuter-patterns-with-other-employment-data-a-case-study-in-davis/
So what? People live where they live and work where they work for many reasons. Of course this is a perfect example of applying past mobility issues to a future with unforeseeable commuting patterns. In the future people who work in a nearby community might commute many fewer days than the traditional five days a week while people who commute within Davis might ride an e-bike farther than a regular bike. You seem to be forgetting that predictions are hard especially about the future.
According to Zillow the Median home price as of November 2025 in 95616 was 819,817. So your example is below the median. Meaning half the buyers can afford more than the example you gave.
I bought a new home and paid 20% to 30% more than the base price that comes with the basic finishes.
Our analysis shows that the $740,000 price alluded to is not the average but rather at the bottom of the price scale–the average with the current configuration is more likely to be in excess of $900k according the analysis based on Zillow data.
First, the public comment at the Planning Commission hearing by the engineer who highlighted the fact that the soil movement would take 100,000 dump truck loads was dumbfounding. That’s nearly 6 loads per HOUR for two years assuming 24/7 operation. If we scale that to a normal work period of 40 hrs/wk, that’s 25 trips PER HOUR–all coming down Poleline–2.4 trips PER MINUTE. It’s hard to understand how anyone believes that this operation will even be feasible, much less successful. This is the solution proposed to bring the northern portion of the property in compliance.
And then that engineer pointed out that the new fill was unlikely to settle evenly and would lead to numerous sinkholes, potholes and infrastructure failures that would cause significant maintenance costs (to be paid by whom?) in the near future.
Second, David wrote:
“Rowe proposes alternative approaches, including a smaller development outside the FEMA floodplain or limiting residential construction to land south of Channel A. Those alternatives may marginally reduce flood exposure, but they also substantially reduce housing capacity and do not solve the structural problem that Davis has far fewer homes than jobs and continues to rely on surrounding communities to absorb its workforce.”
What is your evidence for this statement? The Vanguard has already published several articles by the Davis Citizens Planning Group that refutes this statement. Both the Village Farms in Alternative 4, and Willowgrove in Alternatives 3 and 4, published analyses showing the feasibility of a smaller footprint able to supply the housing needs of the City. We can still get 3,000 new housing units that come in at much more affordable prices while also mitigating the environmental and flood risks raised in both the EIRs and by informed citizens. If you don’t believe that somehow these reduced footprint alternatives won’t meet housing goals, you need to be much more specific with some form of empirical research to back up your assertions.
This proposals needs to be scaled down significantly, consistent perhaps with Alternative 3 for Willowgrove with a smaller footprint and same number of houses. That would accomplish numerous city objectives much better than what has been proposed.
A consequence of Rowe’s commentary is that, in practical terms, it makes new housing less likely to be built.
At this point, the choice facing Davis is not between multiple fully formed alternatives, but between the status quo and whatever project the City Council decides to place on the ballot. I have no problem with arguing for a smaller but more dense footprint, although I don’t think it has much chance of success.
However, in a city with a persistent housing shortage, maintaining the status quo is itself a substantive policy choice, one that predictably results in continued underproduction of housing rather than a shift to a different, viable development outcome.