A recent article was published in the Davis Enterprise (3/22/26) entitled “Village Farms Contaminant Risks” which purportedly discussed the alleged “risks” of environmental harm due to concentrations of a class of chemicals found in the groundwater beneath the Old Davis Landfill. These chemicals, known as PFASs, are likely found in the groundwater as a result of seepage from the long-since closed Old Davis Landfill. This article was later reprinted in a slightly altered form in the Davisite and Davis Vanguard on March 29,
Unfortunately, however, the authors of the article really only repeated information already known about the concentrations of this only remaining organic contaminant currently found in the groundwater.
Further, the authors completely failed to actually quantify any real environmental “risk”of any type that this reported contamination might actually cause. Instead, the authors essentially just say,”It’s there and it’s really bad”! — albeit saying that in a very ponderous and sonorous but seemingly credible manner.
But the authors did not even attempt to quantify the real likelihood of any environmental risk in their article. Why?…Because the risk of contamination is so infinitesimally low that to properly quantify that risk and disclose that information to the public would completely undermine their attempts to scare and frighten the public. This is not a thoughtful, deliberate scientific report. This is yellow journalism pure and simple.
Let me explain
This article is just another part of an ongoing series of false claims by Village Farms Davis opponents alleging huge risks of harm from groundwater contamination while simultaneously attempting to dissuade voters from approving the Village Farms Davis project. Repeatedly responding to each of the series of untrue or misleading statements is somewhat akin to the old popular carnival midway game, “Whack-a-Mole”.
REPEATED PAST WRONGFUL CLAIMS OF CONTAMINATION ARE LIKE MOLES THAT KEEP POPPING UP
Firstly, go back to 2023 when Eileen Samitz was before the City Council repeatedly alleging the groundwater beneath the project had all sorts of hazardous chemicals in it, “…including vinyl chloride, a carcinogen that never goes away.” And so, of course, Ms. Samitz insisted the Council must reject putting Village Farms Davis on the ballot or there will unspecified catastrophic environmental consequences.
Subsequently, however, actual groundwater testing in 2024 showed that all of the volatile organic hydrocarbons in the groundwater under both the old landfill and the Village Farms Davis site previously identified in the 1980s and 1990s had, in fact, COMPLETELY dissipated — including vinyl chloride. In other words, all of the chemicals in the groundwater that the naysayers have sworn “WILL NEVER GO AWAY!“, actually ALL DID COMPLETELY GO AWAY!
Those previously identified organic groundwater contaminants likely naturally decomposed and/or migrated towards the northeast in the direction of the underlying aquifer flow and directly away from the Village Farm Davis — exactly as was predicted.
So Mole No. 1 was whacked!…But wait, the game is not over!
Ms. Samitz has since admitted sending a letter to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) claiming the groundwater contamination under the site was so extensive and pervasive that it could result in imminent harm to the future inhabitants of Village Farms Davis.
Responding to this complaint, the acknowledged expert scientists at the RWQCB reviewed all available records for the Old Davis Landfill site and subsequently sent a letter to the City of Davis stating, “...Staff does not believe a risk is posed to the residential and commercial properties proposed for development if the development is connected to the existing City municipal water system and the City water system is the sole means of water used by the development.“
Because Village Farms Davis 1) will rely entirely on Davis municipal water supply and 2) all existing water wells on site will be permanently capped before home construction and occupation ensuring no groundwater from the project site can ever be pumped in the future, there is thus no risk of exposure to future residents according to the RWQCB.
So Mole No. 2 was whacked! But let’s keep playing because another Mole just popped up!
Now the pundits are back claiming in the recent Enterprise article that there is an unquantified, but apparently huge and dangerous risk to the Wildhorse Ranch residents and the Yolo Bypass environment due to contamination in the groundwater from the Old Davis Landfill. The only organic chemical contaminants remaining in the groundwater are the PFASs because all of the other contaminants are gone. Unfortunately, the groundwater was never tested for PFASs before 2024 so we have no idea what previous concentrations of the contaminants existed.
But now, the authors of the Enterprise article are like Chicken Little running around shouting “THE SKY IS FALLING…THE SKY IS FALLING” claiming the presence of PFAS in the groundwater is an imminent environmental threat to the Yolo Bypass and more study is needed to prevent an environmental catastrophe — and so, of course, everybody should vote No on Measure V. But the naysayers never actually tell us what is the likelihood of PFASs in the groundwater ever contaminating the Yolo Bypass just like Chicken Little never said what is the likelihood of the sky actually falling.
Notice that functionally all the article authors say in their article is that there are PFASs in the groundwater beneath the Village Farms Davis project site and this groundwater COULD (possibly…maybe…might) migrate up to the bottom of the new lined Channel A drainage channel running through the project that convey flood water from west and north Davis. Then that water COULD (possibly…maybe…might) get into the Channel A through a membrane barrier and then it’s off to the Yolo Bypass where presumably something horrific COULD (possibly…maybe…might) happen to the wildlife there.
But these scientists never actually predict WHAT QUANTITY of the contaminant COULD get into the water and what harm this quantity and concentration of PFASs COULD cause to wildlife in the Yolo Bypass. Now according to their resumes, these authors all have the requisite skill set to easily do these calculations. But they simply chose not to but instead paint a vague picture of impending PFAS Armageddon resulting if the Village Farms Davis project is approved by voters in June.
In fact, the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project did specifically and extensively look at the potential for groundwater seepage into the Channel A and the resultant downstream impacts should that occur. That EIR concluded, “…substantial evidence exists to conclude that potentially contaminated groundwater from the Old Davis Landfill would not come into contact with the Proposed Project/BRPA storm water system. As a result, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that the project’s runoff would not transport contaminated water into the downstream system.” — DEIR (4.8 – 23). Also see the “Channel Evaluation Report.” This finding was conveniently ignored in the recent report claiming otherwise by the paper’s authors.
And so a 3rd contamination Mole has been whacked…Can I get my prize now?
THE REAL CULPRIT IN PFAS CONTAMINATION IN YOLO BYPASS
PFASs are a class of fluoridated hydrocarbon chemicals widely found in waterproof and grease-proof apparel and food packaging through which it finds its way into the environment and the human body. The EPA estimates that 99% of US residents have some levels of PFASs in their bloodstream and 155 million people in the US have some levels of PFASs in their drinking water supplies. Fortunately, PFASs have NOT been detected in Davis municipal drinking water supplies.
However, large amounts of PFASs are actually being continuously released into the environment and reaching the Yolo Bypass as feared by project opponents. But these contaminants are NOT FROM GROUNDWATER BENEATH THE OLD DAVIS LANDFILL. Rather they are released from the City of Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) into the wetlands adjacent to the WWTP where they then flow into Willow Slough and on into the Yolo Bypass.
The vast majority of PFASs in effluent from the Davis WWTP are due to human waste — primarily in urine — which contaminants are poorly removed during normal waste water treatment plant operations. In fact, the Davis WWTP sampled its effluent on multiple dates in 2021 and found an average total PFAS concentration of 111 ppb (parts per billion) in its effluent of 6 million gallons per day. This is about twice the concentration of total PFASs found underneath the Village Farms Davis site which otherwise have never been shown to contribute to ANY increase in PFASs released into Channel A. So one could fairly ask where is the real source of PFAS contamination “risk” of the Yolo Bypass?
Project opponents who are SO concerned with PFASs entering the Yolo Bypass would do well to instead focus on this massive plume of PFASs otherwise flowing into Yolo Bypass from our own municipal WWTP and from the other WWTPs discharging into the Yolo Bypass and Delta — including from the Woodland WWTP and the massive Sacramento Regional WWTP near Elk Grove. Focusing on reducing these KNOWN sources of PFASs entering the Yolo Bypass would be far more protective of the environment rather than speculating on some infinitesimal risk that PFASs will somehow enter Channel A from groundwater beneath the now-closed Old Davis Landfill in the future.
Indeed, if Project opponents are really that concerned with PFASs entering Yolo Bypass and endangering wildlife, perhaps they could all collectively eliminate their own personal contributions to PFASs discharged into those wetlands by simply stopping peeing in their toilets…But I’m guessing that ain’t gonna happen, eh?
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.
The much bigger problem is moving one million cubic feet of soil to raise the northern section above the flood plain. That’s going to take 2 years of continuous operations to move 100,000 dump truck loads. It will be very expensive for creating unnecessary urban sprawl.
1,000,000 cubic feet
at 27 cubic feet in a cubic yard
= 37,037 cubic yards
A large dump truck holds 20 cubic yards
37,037 cubic yards divided by 20
= 1,852 dump truck loads.
1,852 vs 100,000.
One of you is wrong.
Which one?
My typo. Its 1 million cubic yards to be moved. I use a dump truck capacity of 10 cubic yards. That equates to 100,000 trips. Yes, some trucks can have capacities up to 25 cubic yards.
Urban sprawl? The development plan includes 47 acres of restored natural habitat, 40.8 acres of greenbelts, and a 6.8 acre park. This is super low density. 47 acres of restored natural habitat means 20% of the land for the project is being used to make a swamp!
I don’t understand why some people are so concerned about Village Farms creating “urban sprawl” as if the plan is to build 6 story apartments or skyscrapers. Village Farms is a tiny suburban addition to medium size city. If anything, Village Farms should be criticized for being too scaled back, dedicating so much space for single family homes and a whole 47 acres for restored habitat.
Urban sprawl, the rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation.
See Elk Grove.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/urban-sprawl
Exactly – it’s the low density that J Smith notes that is a key component of “sprawl”, according to some. 400 acres or so acres of it, in this case.
I believe it’s the largest development ever proposed outside of Davis.
No permanent protection as I understand it for the vernal pool that Alan P denies the existence of, either.
If they built Trump Tower on a half-acre of the site (and left the rest protected), I probably wouldn’t even be involved myself.
Ron O says, “No permanent protection as I understand it for the vernal pool that Alan P denies the existence of, either.”
Your undertsanding is incorrect. In fact, the Baseline Features (part of the ballot statement) says, “The roughly 47-acre area between the Cannery and existing Channel A will remain undeveloped. This area will generally retain its existing natural state, preserving habitat for special-status species.”
As you are aware, Baseline Features cannot be changed without another vote of the people so the land, (which, BTW, is designated “alkali playa” and not “vernal pools” by both the DEIR Biologist and the California Dept of Fish and Wildlife – but what do they know?) cannot ever be developed.
Honestly, Alan P – I never know what to believe (or the details thereof) between you and Eileen. You both have a motivation to put forth claims that may not be complete or entirely accurate based on your respective pre-formed advocacy.
I don’t think the vernal pool issue was settled at the time you were arguing with that young man who attended the Sierra Club meetings.
But I also don’t think these type of issues are where the battle will be won or lost.
Though it is strange to agree to preserve a site that has “special status species” (don’t know what that means) if it’s not a vernal pool. If I’m not mistaken, there were species found there that are normally found in vernal pools.
Is this part of the dig pit?
How about my other observation – the largest peripheral development ever proposed outside of Davis – is that accurate?
One other issue I’m honestly confused about is whether or not the developer is agreeing to PAY FOR the grade-separated crossing(s). Seems that’s another issue that has more than one answer.
For sure, there isn’t going to be any housing that’s both “family sized” and “affordable” (and I’ve already provided evidence of that several times).
Ron O, There is no Conservation Easement in the Baseline Project Features. It is mentioned in the Development Agreement, but we all know that Development Agreements can, and often are re-negotiated. So, having the Conservation Easement only in the Development Agreement is meaningless since it can be negotiated away later.
So, why isn’t the Conservation Easement in the Village Farms Baseline Project Features? Stating that the vernal pools will not be developed is NOT the same as having a Conservation Easement. A Conservation Easement is permanent, and has an environmental organization monitoring the protection of the vernal pools and it is funded to support that monitoring. So, the vernal pools are not being adequately protected.
Below is from the City of Davis’ 2025 RFP to assess potential contamination risks from the adjacent old landfill. You can also get more details here https://www.cityofdavis.org/Home/Components/RFP/RFP/1611/1542.
Geosyntec has been contracted to do the work (contract costs half a million from what I have been told but that price tag needs to be verified).
And by the way, the units in the above op-ed and the author’s previous op-ed should be in ppt (parts per trillion) not ppb (parts per billion).
“City of Davis
Request for Proposals
Old Davis Landfill Environmental Services
Date Released: March 17, 2025
Date and Time Due: April 15, 2025 at 4:00 P.M.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS – OLD DAVIS LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
Overview and Background
The City is requesting environmental/engineering service proposals for tasks requested from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) in relation to the Old Davis Landfill (T10000021241, Open – Site Assessment) at 24998 County Road 102, Davis, Ca (site map in Appendix B). The landfill was officially closed in 1975. The unlined landfill is suspected of discharging contaminants of concern that include metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrates, and total dissolved solids (TDS) to groundwater. The groundwater monitoring conducted in February and September 2024 has indicated that the landfill is discharging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to groundwater. Additional investigation and groundwater monitoring has been requested to assess potential risks posed by discharges from the landfill as well as to delineate and assess the migration of landfill discharges.”
Not to mention if there might be landfill settlement problems down the road for new homeowners?
“potential contamination risks from the adjacent old landfill.”
Approximately 80% of the city water supply comes from the Sacramento River. The remainder comes almost entirely from deep wells which tap a different aquifer than the previous shallower wells used. The shallower wells near this proposed development are not in use. In fact, as far as I can tell, well #24 is the only shallower well still in active use, and it is in South Davis.
How would the contamination of groundwater in an aquifer that isn’t being used affect the residents?
What is the actual risk to any residents, Village Farms or Green Meadows or La Buena Vida or anywhere else nearby, from PFAS contamination of water in the shallower aquifer?
Water supply info:
https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=6207&tinwsys_st_code=CA
https://localwiki.org/davis/Davis_Water_Wells/_files/map.gif/_info/
From https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/village-farms-davis-contaminants/
“EPA researchers[1] stated that “volatile per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose an inhalation exposure risk to occupants of buildings overlying a contaminated soil or a groundwater source.” There are also potential risk pathways via soil, food, surface water, and air[2]. Elevated groundwater PFAS concentrations at the southern margin of the landfill/burn site and upgradient of the project footprint are associated with the 4+ acres most recently used as a waste disposal site between June 1973 and July 1975 according to records at www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/; a time period that corresponds to the introduction of many disposable products containing these PFAS forever-chemicals.“
“PFOS, arguably the most toxic form of PFAS, is present at 1,500 ppt at the southern boundary of the Old Davis Landfill… The proposed drainage channel and residential property will be located within 100 ft of this location.”
Well, here we go again with another wacky, unhinged diatribe by Alan Pryor. And using his tired old “whack a mole” lingo that he used before against other developers with terrible projects (like Village Farms) before he joined ranks with this particular developer whom he is clearly devoted to.
So here Pryor desperately attempts, to refute experts with relevant professional credentials on this serious subject of the contaminant risks at the Village project including a hydrogeologist, who monitored the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site in Davis, a former air quality professional with expertise in carcinogenic dioxins which are typically found in and around burn dumps, and a former professor of chemical engineering … but Pryor claims to know more.
So, who should one believe here? Alan Pryor with no expertise in this subject, or these credentialed professionals? Not a hard choice.
It’s relevant to recall that Pryor also was completely wrong when he repeatedly tried to deny that the Village Farm vernal pools were, in fact, vernal pools. He unsuccessfully tried to convince environmentalists and others, of this falsehood, despite the City Biologist making it clear that they were, in fact, vernal pools. So, while the Village Farms developer was planning to pave over the vernal pools with the original “Proposed Project”, Alan was defending that version of the project. Alan’s actions were in direct conflict with environmentalists defending the vernal pools, but that didn’t phase his dogged attempts to disprove the vernal pools existence.
Fortunately, the environmental community opposing Pryor prevailed, including some UCD student botanists, who kept up the pressure for proper sampling to be done this time with the Village Farms biologicals studies. This was to prevent a repeat of the improper sampling that was done for the Covell Village EIR which overlooked the vernal pools.
It is also relevant that the vernal pools were disced just weeks before the Covell Village Farms EIR began – much like the Burrowing Owl habitat being disced just before the Covell Village project EIR began (the same developer was proposing that project).
Meanwhile, the vernal pools are still endangered because the re-routing of Channel would disrupt the complex hydrology (both surface and subsurface) which the vernal pools rely on to survive. There is no Conservation Easement required in the Baseline Project Features guaranteeing the preservation of these vernal pools and ensuring their survival. But Pryor will likely deny this issue as well.
Pryor repeats his false spin of a comment I once made regarding vinyl chloride “does not go away”. What was meant by this is that vinyl chloride is notoriously persistent in landfills and surrounding groundwater sometimes even for decades. It is frequently produced in landfills via the anaerobic biodegradation of other chlorinated solvents. So, I am not sure why he cannot understand or retain this very simple concept. Seems like selective memory, or more likely his political spin on this broken record he tries to play over and over. But Pryor’s long-winded article certainly sounds he is trying to wish away the carcinogenic PFAS’s contamination issue that Village Farms has.
Then, the other cheap shot Pryor attempts is to claim that I “admit” (as if there was wrong doing) to writing the letter to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. News flash, I have testified to this at public meetings so there is no big “reveal” as Pryor is trying to imply here. When the Village Farms project was announced, I learned that the City had stopped monitoring the contaminated groundwater in 2020 (including the Village Farms site monitoring wells). When the Water Board was made aware of this, they acted immediately, directing the City to resume the groundwater monitoring. This is when the high levels of PFAS’s “forever chemicals“ were found leaking from the unlined Old City Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant. As a result, more wells are being dug for more monitoring to determine if the aquifers are being contaminated and where the PFAS plume is traveling. How odd that Pryor did not mention this information from the Water Board?
And regarding the Water Board’s early comment about Village Farms, it was not a confirmation of no problems. They used the term that they “believed” at that time that they were not expecting problems if surface water was being used. But that was before they had the data revealing the elevated PFAS levels in the groundwater monitoring wells, including from the Village Farms monitoring wells. The Water Board also did not know about the shallow contaminated groundwater issue and potential vapor intrusion of PFAS’ chemicals exposing residents. But as a result of the high PFAS levels detected, the Water Board did direct the City to take action with additional monitoring wells to be dug, and testing all wells within a mile of the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant. Their concerns include, where this PFAS plume is moving, and if there is, or risk of, contamination of our aquifers from the PFAS “forever chemicals” and other chemical contaminants. There are elevated PFAS levels from the Village Farms monitoring wells so Village Farms is setting the City up potentially for long-term liability.
So, sorry if this is inconvenient for the Village Farms developer and this train wreck of a project, but the health, safety, and welfare of our community is the priority here.
Anyway, this latest tirade by Pryor is just another frantic attempt to dismiss, distract, and direct attention away from one of the many serious issues and impacts that Village Farms would impose on Davis.
As usual, Ms. Samitz is employing her favorite tactic which is to personally attack the messenger and raise a whole menagerie of peripheral issues to avoid addressing the main points that were raised – that is, the PFASs in the groundwater do NOT present any measureable risk to future residents of Village Farms Davis nor to the Yolo Bypass.
And in doing so, Ms. Samitz is yet again simply employing the old lawyers’ strategy -> When the facts are not on your side, argure the law. When the law is not on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell like hell :)
Alan,
Stop trying to playing the victim here. You are the one on the attack by trying to undermine the article refuting your claims about “no toxics issues at Village Farms”. I am simply responding to your false claims, your false accusations, and explaining your history of undermining the vernal pools and why you have no credibility.
In his article Alan Pryor said … A recent article was published in the Davis Enterprise (3/22/26) entitled “Village Farms Contaminant Risks” which purportedly discussed the alleged “risks” of environmental harm due to concentrations of a class of chemicals found in the groundwater beneath the Old Davis Landfill.
Purportedly?
Purportedly is an adverb meaning something is claimed, asserted, or reputed to be true, though it may not be. It implies a statement is unverified or possibly doubtful.
There is no doubt that the Enterprise article discussed … at length … the “alleged risks of environmental harm.” How Alan can say there is any doubt that discussion took place is a mystery. He may not agree with the content of what was discussed, but the fact that it was discussed is without any doubt, true.
Sometimes I wonder about Alan’s objectivity. Recently, he and I participated in an open meeting about Village Farms in which over 30 people made public comment. 100% of the public comments were against the project … over thirty on the one side compared to zero on the other side, and yet Alan’s bottom-line on those public comments was that they showed no preference either for or against the project. As Yul Bruner once said, “It’s a puzzlement!”
Alan went on to say … It’s there and it’s really bad”! — albeit saying that in a very ponderous and sonorous but seemingly credible manner.
Seemingly credible?
The authors have made their careers studying and publishing in the field. They have earned an established academic and intellectual and practical credibility in their field.
All I can say to you on this one Alan is, Bonasera, Bonasera, what have the authors ever done to make you treat them so disrespectfully?
Or alternatively, what are the academic, intellectual, and/or practical credentials of anyone stepping forward to refute the points they make in their article?
You ask for a quantification of risk. Big Tobacco used that same tactic in their long battle to discredit the elevated cancer risk that smokers were subject to. How did that work out for Big Tobacco?
Alan Pryor said … This is not a thoughtful, deliberate scientific report. This is yellow journalism pure and simple.
And what is your article? Is it yellow journalism? Or black pot journalism? Or both?
The PeeFAS Hypothesis or The Pee Hypothesis
Generally, I don’t address personal hygiene habits but Mr. Pryor’s article,
‘Let’s Play Contamination Whack-A-Mole With Opponents Of Village Farms Davis’ states the following;
“ Indeed, if Project opponents are really that concerned with PFASs entering Yolo Bypass and endangering wildlife, perhaps they could all collectively eliminate their own personal contributions to PFASs discharged into those wetlands by simply stopping peeing in their toilets…But I’m guessing that ain’t gonna happen, eh?”
Such a change in habit would indeed be uncomfortable especially for a person of my age so I have no choice but to respond.
The Pee Hypothesis
Mr. Pryor hypothesizes that the source of PFAS in the Davis waste water treatment plant is human urine in other words pee. It is based on the three taken from effluent samples taken in 2021. The following summaries the total PFAS concentration on each respective date.
2/16/ 21 120ng/L
5/5/21 85.4 ng/L
9/22/21 60.4 ng/L
In addition, there was one sample taken on 11/16/20.
11/16/20 10ng/L
The average concentration of total PFAS for the 2021 samples is 88.6ng/L.
If one looks at the measurement taken in 2020, the total PFAS concentration is 10ng/L. So, if pee is the major source of PFAS in the effluent why is the concentration of PFAS almost nine times higher in 2021 than in 2020? Does this mean humans peed nine times less in 2020? In other words, if a human peed one time a day in 2021 that human would only have peed one time in nine days. The addition of the 2020 data point runs counter to the pee hypothesis.
This is a cautionary note on forming a hypothesis on a limited data set. Nor does the data tells us anything about the source of the PFAS. Just because PFAS are found in the effluent of WWTP does it mean human urine is the source. Major sources include fire retardants, industrial plants and landfills and pee is not one of them. PFAS are long lived in the environment and are highly mobile where they transported via air and water. PFAS can be found in pristine places such as Antarctica. PFAS settle and accumulate in the water and soil as they are persistent to degradation and so they are ubiquitous in the environment.
Davis is no exception, as there were PFAS measured at all locations tested. Nothing in the data suggest there is unusually high levels of PFAS in Davis pee.
The old Davis Landfill ground water has the highest PFAS concentrations of the locations tested. Apparently, the City of Davis concludes this is of concern. As in 2025 it put out a solicitation for a request of proposal:
“The unlined landfill is suspected of discharging contaminants of concern that include metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrates, and total dissolved solids (TDS) to groundwater. The groundwater monitoring conducted in February and September 2024 has indicated that the landfill is discharging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to groundwater. Additional investigation and groundwater monitoring has been requested to assess potential risks posed by discharges from the landfill as well as to delineate and assess the migration of landfill discharges.”
You can read the RFP at this link: https://www.cityofdavis.org/Home/Components/RFP/RFP/1611/1542?selsta=4&sortn=RFPNumber&sortd=asc
The multi-year contract was awarded to Geosyntec Consultants.
Mr. Pryor laments all the toxic issues associated with landfill is like playing Whack a Moe with the Village Farms proposed development which is adjacent to the Old Davis Landfill. It should be noted that landfills are the repository of all sort of wastes some of which can be very toxic. It isn’t surprising that all the major potential risks were not initially identified. Not addressed in the initial assessment was that it was also a burn dump site. Burn dump sites have their own set of toxics hazardous materials and they are found in the residue ash and soil. Now high concentrations of PFAS have been found in the ground water wells.
Changing from potential to assessed is challenging. This is a problem I faced when I worked on the multimedia working group for new motor vehicle fuels. Our task was to assess the impact new motor vehicle fuels have on the environment including the media of air, water, and soil and the impact to public health. The approach we used was science based which requires quality data and a full data set. Without quality data a reliable risk assessment cannot be conducted.
The pee hypothesis is a cautionary example where an incomplete data set and bad assumptions can lead one to the wrong conclusion which is that pee has the higher level of concern than the Old Davis Landfill. In fact, the opposite is true.
Getting back to Mr. Pryor’s lament, no amount of posturing will change that. If Mr. Pryor wants to speed up the process, I suggest he help expedite the process and get the risk assessment conducted. That is the best way to change potential to assessed risk and still protect public health and environment. If the risk assessment supports Mr. Pryor’s claim that there is no significant impact, the faster the Village Farms can be developed. If not, then the proper assessed risk can be addressed and folks can be confident they will have the health and safety that thy expect when they move into a new home. As for me it means that I don’t have to go the wetlands when I get the urge. Peace out.
Thanks Robert for flushing Pryor’s PeeFAS “Hypothesis” down the toilet. This not the first time he has gotten things completely wrong, yet tries continues to to run with some weird new “spin” to support this Village Farms mess of a project.
At the very least, it seems like a proposal shouldn’t extend beyond the existing ditch/channel. I assume that doing so would at least reduce the risk from the adjacent, old dump/burn pit.
If I was buying a house there, I’d at least want it some distance away from that. (I’m not sure where the expensive semi-McMansions would be built – I assume in that area.)
Though truth be told, I also wouldn’t want a house on soil dumped from that area (the dig pit), and I’d also be concerned about settling of soil (underneath “my” house) that’s been dumped. (This is a big issue for housing developments that have been raised above flood zones.)
Pretty sure I’d want a “proven” house, in an existing neighborhood instead. (Already a much better deal, and with lower or no Mello Roos.)