In a recent Op-Ed in the Enterprise (Commentary: Why a planning commissioner voted no on Village Farms, Jan 2, 2026), Greg Rowe stated he opposed the Village Farms Davis project claiming the site had excessive flood risks.
He stated that because part of the proposed project site is currently in a 100-year Flood Zone as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and because climate change will bring more extreme weather events in the future, we simply should not build anything at all in that part of the project.
While flood risks are real and climate concerns are valid, Mr. Rowe’s comments ignore the fact that proven engineering solutions will be implemented at Village Farms Davis to remove it from the mapped 100-year flood zone, and furthermore, provide protection against a more severe 200-year flood event.
Village Farms Davis is actually designed to meet higher flood protection standards than significant portions of the rest of Davis, including many older neighborhoods developed before modern flood-protection standards, and over 400 acres within the city limits that still remain within the 100-year flood plain — including swaths of residential West and Central Davis.
Let me explain.
Davis, and indeed much of the Central Valley itself, was once much more prone to flooding. However, as levees, drainage channels, and holding basins were constructed throughout the Central Valley, flood risks were dramatically reduced in areas planned for development — witness the levees of the Yolo Bypass directly to the east of Davis, the complete re-routing of Putah Creek to the south of Davis, and the Covell Ditch built to convey excess flood waters away from homes in North Davis.
Similar changes to the topography, on a much smaller scale, will be implemented at Village Farms Davis. These engineered solutions are not simply an “unproven stormwater contrivance” as Mr. Rowe claims. Rather, they use sound, proven engineering design principles that are routinely employed by competent, registered professional civil engineers.
Indeed, the engineered changes at Village Farms Davis must be certified by FEMA as meeting 100-year flood protection before construction can even begin at the site. And California law requires that the project meet the higher standard of protection from the 200-year storm event. Project opponents who have raised concerns about flooding continue to ignore these facts.
Mr. Rowe seems to base his entire argument around the fact that the climate is changing and so we must not build in 100-year flood plains. And we agree. Where we differ with Mr. Rowe, however, is that we believe in science-based solutions to problems and accepted engineering principles and practices.
The project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes hundreds of pages of engineering analysis related to the impacts of extreme storm events to the project and the surrounding areas in Davis. Those engineering studies, based on the most recent, most conservative science, demonstrate that Village Farms Davis will be better protected against flooding than the vast majority of subdivisions previously constructed in the city.
The engineered solutions proposed at Village Farms Davis include 1) Raising the elevation of the land by a sufficient amount to remove the residential areas from the mapped 100-year flood zone and provide 200-year storm event protection, 2) Rebuilding and redirecting the Covell Ditch through the property to increase conveyance and holding capacity, and 3) Constructing a large basin to the north of the property to hold runoff water both from the project as well as from Central Davis .
These are not simply “contrivances,” as claimed by Mr. Rowe. Rather, they are standard and proven engineering practices routinely used for decades throughout the US and in Davis to minimize flood hazards.
In fact, these same engineering practices were recently employed at the Bretton Woods development in West Davis. That land was previously entirely within the 100-year flood plain, but the new project was required to be engineered to withstand a 200-year flood event using the same types of engineered solutions that will be implemented at Village Farms Davis. These flood protection practices were acceptable to Mr. Rowe at Bretton Woods (as a planning commissioner, he supported Bretton Woods), but somehow are now deemed inadequate in the context of Village Farms Davis?
Doesn’t make sense to me.
To anyone who is actually concerned about flood risks: I invite you to support Village Farms Davis so that people will someday have the opportunity to rent or buy a home in one of the most flood-resilient neighborhoods ever constructed in the City of Davis.
Doug Buzbee is a member of the Village Farms Davis development team. His family is one of the seven generational Davis families that are part of the North Davis Land Company; the developers of the Village Farms Davis project. These long-term Davis families were instrumental in developing many of the cherished neighborhood features into the fabric of the Davis community that we enjoy today. These include, among many others, founding the ubiquitous greenbelt network and developing what was then the largest solar apartment community in the United States.
These families were also instrumental in the creation of many beloved Davis institutions such the Davis Farmers Market, the Davis Arts Center, the US Bicycling Hall of Fame, and Natalie’s Corner. Additionally, they have been decades-long supporters of DJUSD through annual direct donations to teachers by the Tandem Foundation and they have given substantial philanthropic support over the years to the Yolo Food Bank, Davis Community Meals & Housing, and Yolo Crisis Nursery.
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.
“… because climate change will bring more extreme weather events in the future, we simply should not build anything at all in that part of the project.”
“Predictions are hard especially about the future.”
Yogi Bera
Progressives be saying: Climate change is real but, but, but…
Designing for a 200-year event instead of a 100-year event is a climate change adaptation. While there is always a possibility of a 500-year event this is a reasonable balance. And, as stated, it is better protection than much of Davis. I find this issue to be a red herring raising red flags that do not reflect the science.
What do you think of the dig pit (to get soil used to elevate the entire remainder of the property), and is that the same thing as the “large basin” described in the article above – which would then be tied into the drainage system?
In my opinion, anyone associated with the Sierra Club who downplays environmental concerns is undermining the Sierra Club itself. They already don’t have a good record in regard to their support for Wildhorse Ranch (about a decade ago, which got trounced). Which by any measure, had nowhere near the environmental impact of Village Farms.
There is something questionable occurring with the local chapter of the Sierra Club. I’ve witnessed it myself.
The lack of funding for a grade-separated crossing alone should be enough to cause the Sierra Club to question this proposal.
“In my opinion, anyone associated with the Sierra Club who downplays environmental concerns is undermining the Sierra Club itself.”
Shouldn’t said environmental concerns be based on data and science?
“Shouldn’t said environmental concerns be based on data and science?”
You say that as someone who didn’t witness what I saw, regarding the vernal pool controversy. And it wasn’t the “usual suspects” who brought up concerns.
Science is not a fixed concept. We apparently can’t even agree (scientifically) on the concept of males and females, these days – though I think my cat has figured it out.
As for the flood zone issue itself, none of us on here is an expert regarding that. But even the experts often disagree. (Pretty sure that the experts thought that the Orville dam was o.k.)
The experts are also telling us that Natomas is just fine, even though the airport itself has contingency plans to use an alternate airfield.
I’d say that the massive amount of soil redistribution resulting from digging a pit and raising the ground at the Village Farms site (which currently consists of prime agricultural soil) is itself an environmental catastrophe, regardless of how well it channels water off-site.
As for whether or not new residents get flooded out at some point, I couldn’t care less about that (unless some of the cost gets passed on to me).
That’s a lot of words to answer, no
Science?
Yes – I think there are males and females, and that it’s largely a binary system. But I realize there are “scientists” telling me otherwise, these days.
In any case, I don’t find some of those associated with the local Sierra Club chapter to be very “scientifically objective” these days. You had to be there, it seems – regardless of your views regarding this proposal.
I don’t believe they’ve analyzed the flood issue, nor are there any experts on there regarding that.
I think that answers my question.
I don’t weigh in on subjects I don’t know enough about. Note how I didn’t say anything about the flood issue at this particular site.
I’m just telling you what I witnessed regarding another scientific issue – an issue in which some of those who participated do have scientific expertise, which resulted in (let’s just say) “disagreement”. (And again, not the usual suspects, as you would put it.)
But again, you seem to be claiming that there’s never any disagreement within “science”, as long as it supports your advocacy.
Overall, there is agreement that this development is in a flood zone. Now, whether or not the engineering is sufficient to mitigate that (or if it would create some other problem) is not something that’s going to be settled on a political blog.
Do I think that some massive, life-threatening flood would occur at the site? No. But that’s generally not the only criteria. And perhaps more importantly, it’s not likely a deciding factor in regard to Measure J.
“I don’t weigh in on subjects I don’t know enough about.”
Uh huh.
I suppressed a laugh too
Says the three “flood control engineers” on here, who say that there’s no problem?
At least two of whom are overwhelmingly-supportive of the proposal, regardless?
Name one thing I’ve weighed in on in which I don’t know what I’m talking about. My “area of expertise” is the fake housing shortage and oversized school district, if you want to talk about those issues again.
Though again, I’m also of the opinion that there are (science-based) males and females – something that a couple of you seem to have trouble with. Apparently, I (and my cat) also know more about that than a recent Supreme court appointee.
Ron, I find you to be very well informed on most of what you comment on and better informed than some of the know-it-alls who often chime in on here.
Thanks, Keith.
I actually do think that “both sides” of a given issue generally aren’t interested in anything which doesn’t support their advocacy.
I’ve been trying harder to avoid falling into that trap myself, as it ultimately undermines credibility.
The flood issue? The toxic issue? (I don’t know.) But I did see enough politically-based disagreement regarding the vernal pool issue, and have observed a bias from some (well, primarily from one leader) in the Sierra Club.
Another thing that occurs regarding these issues is that some people do end up gaining expertise, for the PURPOSE of supporting their advocacy. And that’s what we’re seeing on here from a couple of these commenters. (Though they still seem short on actual expertise.)
Regarding Greg Rowe, he seems to be attracting attention from the Vanguard BECAUSE he’s not what anyone would call a “no-growther”, and is also on the planning commission. He is not a “usual suspect” for any particular side.
“What do you think of the dig pit (to get soil used to elevate the entire remainder of the property)”
I’m curious as to how long that soil would have to settle before it could be built on?
Creating the dig pit is the biggest environmental issue outside of violating the City’s CAAP that I object to. When the soils engineer spoke at the Planning Commission about using 100,000 dump truck loads to move 1 million cubic feet (the math works out) in two years, I struck by the magnitude of the effort. That’s almost six (6) loads per hour–one every 10 minutes–running 24/7 with not weather delays or other impediments. If we use a normal work week of 2000 hours per year, we get 25 loads every hour or one every 2.4 minutes. That’s a large amount of diesel emissions that need not occur if the Council chose Alternative 4 with a smaller footprint to accommodate 1800 homes.
And if those loads are running down Poleline, the road will be destroyed and have to be reconstructed. In addition, the soil is unlikely to compact evenly, creating infrastructure damage in the new development as it settles. Who is going to pay for those repairs?
How is the article dated the 18th, but the comments are on the 17th?
We all rehearsed our comments ahead of time and David forgot to change the dates. Sorry you were left out of the fun! ;^D