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

Let’s Play Contamination Whack-a-Mole with Opponents of Village Farms Davis

By Alan Pryor

INTRODUCTION

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?

Davisite logo

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

Comments

7 responses to “Let’s Play Contamination Whack-a-Mole with Opponents of Village Farms Davis”

  1. Bob Angel

    It would appear that a NO vote is the proper one.

    1. Marjorie Longo

      That’s right Bob!

  2. Marjorie Longo

    Below is from the City of Davis’ 2025 RFP to assess potential contamination risks from the 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.”

  3. Eileen Samitz

    Well, here we go again with another 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.

  4. 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!”

  5. 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?

  6. robert okamoto

    First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Pryor for removing some of his more personal comments he wrote in the Vanguard article from this article, although more needs to be done. For reference you can read his article and my response to his article at this link: https://davisvanguard.org/2026/04/groundwater-contamination-davis-farms/#google_vignette

    As a rebuttal, my colleagues and I based our evaluation and conclusions on the available data and on years of training and experience in the sciences and environmental field. As I stated the best way to assess the magnitude of these issues is to use a science-based approach. It serves nobody if we make the wrong conclusion or employ hyperbole.

    So, I would also like to suggest that Mr. Pryor focus more on the data than our motives so we can have a meaningful discussion. Again, I can assure you our process is science based.

    So, I would like to start from the beginning with most basic question, how does one compare the PFAS impact from the Davis waste water treatment plant (WWTP) and Old Davis Landfill (ODL). Mr. Pryor only compares the total PFAS level or concentration, however, that’s only part of the equation. The other part is the toxicity. Total PFAS are the sum of many individual PFAS. Some PFAS are more toxic than others. For example, one source with higher total PFAS but with lower toxicity of individual PFASs maybe of less concern than a sample with lower total PFAS but higher toxicity of individual PFASs.

    To determine the toxicity of various individual PFAS, the US EPA has established legally enforceable standards in drinking water for six of them. These standards set a maximum contaminant level or MCL. Currently, they are PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and a PFAS mixture. MCLs are an indicator of the toxicity of the PFAS. The lower the MCL the higher the toxic concern. PFOS and PFOA have the lowest MCLs at 4ng/L. They are the PFAS that drive the risk the most.

    This is a good place to start a quick preliminary analysis of the data. To take both the concentration and toxicity into consideration, the individual PFAS data from WWTP effluent from 2020 and 2021 and the OLF well DW-MW-1 from 2024-25 was used for this preliminary analysis. The DW-MW-1 well was used because it had the highest levels of PFAS. This is so a reasonable worse case could be established.

    Waste Water Treatment Plant*
    PFOA 9.75 (4ng/L) or 2.5 times MCL

    Old Davis Landfill (ODL) well DM-MW-1**
    PFOA 65 (4ng/L) or 16 times MCL
    PFOS 1333 (4ng/L) or 333 times MCL

    * For the average of 4 Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Effluent samples taken in 2020 and 2021
    ** For the average of 3 Old Davis Landfill samples taken in 2024 and 2025

    For each of the PFAS measured in the WWTP only PFOA had a level above the MCL at 9.8ng/L. This is 2.5 times higher than the 4ng/L MCL. All the other PFAS were below their MCLs.

    For the old Davis Landfill well DM-MW-1 PFOA and PFOS were the two PFAS measured above the MCL. They were at concentrations much higher than their MCLs at 65ng/L for PFOA and 1333 ng/L for PFOS. That is PFOA is 16 times higher than the MCL and PFOS is 333 times higher than the MCL.

    Comparison

    So, one can see clearly in this data set, the Davis Landfill has the much higher levels of the most toxic PFASs. In addition, the WWTP waste water effluent has levels of PFOS that is considered to be safe drinking water range. PFOA is the exception at 2.5 times the MCL. In the ODL sample PFOA is 16 times higher than the MCL and PFOS is 333 times higher than the MCL. In this data set, the Old Davis Landfill ground water site clearly has much higher concentration of toxic PFASs than the WWTP.

    This data indicates there are high concentrations of PFAS in ODL on the north side of the boundary of a proposed housing development. This is also where channel A is being proposed to be diverted. We know PFAS are toxic, persistent, and transport readily through water and air. It should be noted that the city of Davis has initiated a monitoring program to assess potential contamination risk from the Old Davis Landfill.

    Finally, there are many others issues to discuss on Mr. Pryor’s hypothesis of the urine from the WWTP but this one illustrates the point on why the Old Davis Landfill is very much of concern.

Leave a comment