RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A town hall meeting to update residents about an assessment of the community’s water supply became fraught at times when it unfolded at the Rancho Murieta Country Club on May 30.

The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board commissioned the Integrated Water Master Plan, which is using a data-based approach to forecast water needs over the next 20 years, given climate change, drought and the development buildout.

About a dozen audience members spoke at the microphone about the study, prompting the 250- plus audience members to loudly applaud whenever they agreed with the sentiments. Strong emotions were especially evident regarding the impact of development on the future water supply. The most surprising comment coming from a developer. Other tense comments had to do with assumptions in the ongoing water study.

The two speakers were Lisa Maddaus and Dan Scalas, the consulting engineers leading the preparation of the Integrated Water Master Plan. 

The consultants considered climate change when they analyzed the community's water supply under normal river flows and in a worst-case drought serving current customers vs. full development. They recommend increasing the water supply by using some of Clementia for drinking water, digging emergency wells, irrigating the golf courses with river water, and assuming a future increase in recycled water.

Stephen Booth, a Community Services District director, moderated the town hall. Booth became quite assertive at times, insisting that audience members come to the podium to make a comment rather than grousing from their seats.  

Also on the panel were Travis Bohannon, the district’s acting operations manager, Ryan Stolfus, the district’s water rights attorney, Andrew Ramos, the district’s counsel, and General Manager Mimi Morris.

Booth said he had received numerous emails from residents asking that their three-minute comments be ceded to audience members John Merchant and Janis Eckard. Both spoke at length. 

Merchant resigned from the Community Services District board last year to focus on water and related issues as the vice-president of Saving Our Lakes & Open Spaces (SOLOS). It’s a community action group that supports responsible development.

Eckard has been an outspoken critic of past water studies, particularly in 2010 and 2016, which Maddaus helped prepare. Eckhard has raised many questions about the assumptions used in the current study, which she presented to the Community Services District Board a couple of times earlier this year.

However, none of her questions were answered until just before the town hall meeting. That’s when 56 new FAQs (frequently asked questions) were posted to the district’s website on the section dedicated to the Integrated Water Master Plan. The FAQs were also distributed as an 11-page handout just before the meeting began. 

Merchant expressed frustration about the late appearance of the FAQs, saying he didn’t have time to read them before commenting at the meeting. He said it was the third time that material promised 10 days in advance before didn’t show up until the last minute. 

Following the meeting, the River Valley Times asked Morris the sources of questions and answers in the FAQs. The general manager said that of the 56 questions, 29 came from Eckard, five from Cookie Whalen, and 10 from Booth. The remaining questions were posed by eight board members and four members of the public.

Morris said that she, Maddaus, Scalas, Bohannon and Michael Fritschi, who has resigned as the director of operations, answered the questions. 

“It was a lot of work to answer the questions succinctly and accurately,” Morris said.

After some audience members opposed further development because of the effect on water, Booth said he wanted to clarify that any subdivision approval decisions would be made by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, not the district. 

However, Eckhard pointed out that the district is required to submit a water supply assessment to the county planners before any decision can be made. This assessment won’t happen until after the Integrated Water Master Plan is completed, according to a report Merchant has posted to the Saving Our Lakes & Open Spaces website. He was a Community Services District director at the time of the meeting with planners.

The strongest statement opposing the proposed Rancho North development came from rancher and attorney Stan Van Vleck, who requested that his letter be read at the meeting

Although he respects Carol Ward Anderson for her contributions to the community. Van Vleck opposes her Rancho North development. 

“Unfortunately, this project is not good for the community,” Van Vleck said. 

Nor would it be good for him. 

“Adding the additional development without sufficient water in the Cosumnes River harms our ability to irrigate our lands, which we use to feed and water our cattle during the spring and fall months,” his letter said.

Other objections came from audience members Marklin Brown and Roger Formanek. Brown said it was time to consider a moratorium on development. 

Formanek, a retired state attorney who is licensed as an engineering geologist, said the district can’t give new hookups to a developer unless they can bring the water and related infrastructure “so that burden doesn’t go with the people who are in this jurisdiction today.”

Maddaus pointed out that developers must pay infrastructure augmentation fees for every connection in Rancho Murieta  In addition, the developers made advance payments to upgrade the water treatment plant. Maddaus said that was “extraordinarily rare,” compared to other communities.

The last audience member to address development was Ward. 

“I’m not your enemy here. When we bought the development, it was for 1,200 homes but we went down to 697, she said. “We’ve looked very carefully at this property on the other side of the lakes and it probably doesn’t need to be built up.”

After the audience reacted with loud applause, Ward told them she had her kids and horses in the community and wanted to work together to find solutions. 

“We are looking at sensitive areas, and we are bringing in people who want to make this a wonderful place to live and to bring our property values,” she said. “We want to save the country club and the golf courses.”

The River Valley Times emailed Ward after the meeting to ask if she was reconsidering the development of Villages D, E, F and G on the other side of the reservoirs. 

“Yes, there are areas in D, E. F and G that may be more beneficial to the community than building houses,“ she said. “We are actively looking at alternatives in these areas.”

Ward said they are acutely aware that the country club and shopping center need about 800 new rooftops to support them. However, with the Residences East and West subdivision constructing 198 lots, “It softens the need for homes in D, E, F and G,” Ward said. 

Merchant delved into the details to explain why using Clementia for drinking water won’t be feasible. “Number one, it will be very expensive. Number two, it will be very time-consuming. Number three, when you have protests to that change in the water rights, it multiples both the time and the money exponentially.”

Merchant also questioned the explanation of the water rights in the Phase 1 story map. He disagrees with how much water can be stored in the three reservoirs after the Department of Water Resources resolved a protest from downstream farmers in 1979.

Merchant also contended that houses built on the other side of the reservoirs would  block essential drainage into Clementia. He also questioned whether the Consumnes River would remain a sustainable water supply for a population of 9,500 at full buildout.

Eckard questioned the numbers used in the current plan for the current water supply since it is about the same number as in the 2010 study, how the figures for the future amount of recycled water were computed and the conservation rate percentages used in the past and current studies.

“I’m asking each and every one of you to write letters, call and talk to the board of directors. Tell them it is time to have Lisa clean up her study and get the data corrected,” Eckard said.

Myrna and Jay Solomon, who were also ceded extra time, went into detail about the unfeasibility of groundwater wells. 

Maddaus was the last to speak at the meeting. She said she appreciated the comments even though some had been against her personally. 

“I am not here to put fraudulent numbers together for you. Neither is Dan or his team,” she said. “We are all engineers and professionals.”

The crowd applauded her comments.