Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Village Farms will actually be better protected against future flooding than much of Davis

By Doug Buzbee

In a recent Op-Ed in the Enterprise (“Commentary: Why a planning commissioner voted no on Village Farms, Jan 2, 2026” [or see longer version on the Davisite here]), 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.

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

3 responses to “Village Farms will actually be better protected against future flooding than much of Davis”

  1. Mike Lehner

    I appreciate the explanation, Doug. I feel like one could make a similar argument related to earthquake preparedness, fire protection, energy efficiency, mold resilience, accessibility, and any number of things that have been required to be updated based on current construction codes (whatever the impact on the affordability of the resulting housing). Village Farms will also be much less prone to residential fire damage than most of Davis, yet a new fire station is proposed for the site. New construction should always be better than old construction.

    Specifically, could you address how “2) Rebuilding and redirecting the Covell Ditch through the property to increase conveyance and holding capacity” is required to provide 100-year+ flood protection for VF versus maintaining the existing location and possibly expanding capacity as needed to meet modern code requirements? California law requires VF build to protect against 200 year floods. Your fortress on a hill may be built to survive a 100 year flood, but what of the yoke of increased risk the VF castle places upon the rest of Davis?

    I think we’ve seen the unintended consequences of some “standard and proven engineering practices routinely used for decades throughout the US and in Davis to minimize flood hazards” – of trying to hard-engineer flood protection, which works until it catastrophically fails, rather than bending to the whims of Mother Nature and existing “natural infrastructure”. The existing channel has worked well. Will the VF developer assume liability for any flooding that occurs upstream of VF due to the construction of your moat?

    I want to vote in favor of VF, but the development plans and City Council mandates are making it increasingly impossible to do to. (and flooding is one of the least of my concerns that I have discussed with the development team)

  2. Marjorie Longo

    To add to Mike’s comment, when the Wildhorse neighborhood was built a good decision was made to leave the Channel where it was, increase its capacity, and not build north of it. That decision came out of the EIR process which worked the way it is supposed to work. The Channel in Wildhorse has never flooded any homes and it carries a huge amount of water in large flood events. Such an alternative (scaled for the floodplain) should have been analyzed in the EIR process for Village Farms. Instead a Rube Goldberg – esque plan has been locked in for the northern section during the EIR process for Village Farms. The new plan for a liner in the Channel to keep out the toxics just adds to visions of a complicated contraption. The City should have put a maintenance easement on the Channel in Wildhorse to keep it maintained to lessen flooding risk. They are doing that in Village Farms, but as a result the City (and taxpayers) will take on the liability risk for the Village Farms Channel as well.

  3. […] is a response to a recent article by one of the Village Farms partners regarding the project’s proposed flood contro…. The article makes the claim that Village Farms will be “better protected from flooding than most […]

Leave a reply to Marjorie Longo Cancel reply