RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Considering whether to provide water and sewer to already approved subdivisions became a fraught topic when the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board held its monthly meeting on Aug. 21.

The board voted 3:2 in favor after district counsel Patrick Enright recommended approving will- serve letters for the Riverview Development with 130 lots and the Residences of Murieta Hills with 110 lots. Enright warned the board that rejecting the letters could expose the district to litigation. Sacramento County entitled both subdivisions nearly 20 years ago. 

Board President Tim Maybee and Directors Randy Jenco and Martin Pohll voted yes. Directors Steve Booth and Linda Butler voted no.

Booth and Jenco presented dramatically different scenarios when explaining their votes.

Jenco recalled the turmoil of the 1990s when developers and the Rancho Murieta Association sued each other. “It was a quagmire of lawsuits,” he said. “Nobody won. It just cost everybody a lot of time and money.”  

Jenco argued that voting against issuing the will-serve letters would be futile, as the district would likely be sued the following week and ultimately be required to provide water, all while burdening the district and ratepayers with litigation costs.

“As a fiduciary of the ratepayers, I’m not going down that path. Let’s get this done today,” Jenco said.

Booth described the potential consequences if the district faced dry year without any rain, (similar to the 1997-1998 drought), and was unable to pump water from the Cosumnes River into the reservoirs. As of June 1, even if Lake Clementia were utilized for potable water, the remaining water in the reservoirs would last only 5.3 months without any conservation measures and 10.6 months with a 50% conservation plan in place.

“Are you willing to gamble on that slim margin in the event that we either have insufficient flow on the river or some other disruptions and we aren’t able to pump the customary amount of water,” Booth asked.

Booth and Director Linda Butler also asked to table the discussion until board members have the draft of the Integrated Water Master Plan in their hands. But they were overruled.

In other business at the meeting, the board recognized Utilities Supervisor Ron Greenfield for 10 years of service, took in updates from staff and approved an engineering contract.  (See the separate story in the Sept. 13 printed edition of the River Valley Times.)

Attorney Recommendation

District counsel Patrick Enright told the board that about half of the will-serve letter had already been authorized for the developments that participated in the 670 Facilities Services Agreement (FSA) to partially fund the expansion of the water treatment plant. The others were The Retreats and Lakeview, which is donating what would have been 99 lots to the Sacramento Tree Foundation.

“As part of that agreement, we are to issue will-serve letters if they have complied with all the conditions in the agreement,” Enright said.

However, the district has put two conditions in the will-serve letters. The first is adhering to water efficiency standards and the second is conserving water usage in a drought, by as much as 50%.  Enright said the projects will be phased in over three to four years with the connections subject to the water supply augmentation fee in place at the time.

“These projects are kind of on hold at the moment, but my recommendation is to approve the will-serve letters because if we don’t approve them, we subject ourselves to litigation,” Enright said.

The attorney said that the Rancho North subdivision, which hasn’t yet been entitled, would be a different situation.

“We don’t have sufficient water to add another 1,000 units,” he said. “So Rancho North has got to bring their own water supply with them if they want their developments to go forward.”

Opposing Comments

As soon as the attorney finished commenting, Director Linda Butler made a motion to deny the approval of the will-serve letters under the 670 FSA. 

“We just need some time,” she explained later.

Booth seconded the motion and asked to speak first, saying he had taken extensive notes during recent educational meetings with staff and consultants about the water plan, which he and other board members attended. He noted that the figures in the plan have been contested, with some community members believing the water supply is overstated and the demand is understated

However, for the sake of discussion, Booth said he relied on the consultants' figures to create a two-page analysis of the water supply and demand, which he distributed to the audience and the board. He reviewed the numbers in his handout and concluded with a prediction of what could happen in a worst-case scenario if the district were unable to pump water into the reservoirs. His handout is included in the packet for the Aug. 21 board meeting, available online on the district’s website.

Booth also emphasized that he has never used the term “moratorium” during the past three months of discussions. He further noted that adding new hookups at Riverview and the Residences would transform the district into an urban water provider, bringing “a whole new set of requirements, obligations, and hoops we’ll have to jump through.”

John Merchant, one of several audience members opposing the will-serve letters, is a former district board member who will return to the board in December. Along with the group Save Our Lakes & Open Spaces, Merchant is currently circulating a petition calling for the district to declare a moratorium on future development.

Merchant cited the federally-funded American River Basin Study, which includes the Cosumnes River. One of the study's predictions is that declining snowpacks will lead to reduced spring river flows.

“There isn’t going to be any water to top off the reservoirs,” he warned. “If you start the year with less than the 100% that was on Stephen’s chart, that’s a disaster... I just think it’s damn dangerous to proceed with this.”

Later in the meeting, Merchant acknowledged the positions of Jenco, Maybee and Pohll concerning the risk of being sued.

 'We know we’re going to get sued if we don’t provide water upfront, and we’re going to get sued if we don’t provide water on the back end,' he said. 'So, it’s kind of like picking your poison.”

Supporting Comments

Jenco said that if the board voted against the will-serve letters, “We will have a lawsuit filed against us within the next week because, contractually, we are obligated to find them water if we don’t already have it.” He also noted that the increase in water demand wouldn't be significant—281 acre-feet out of a total demand of 1,997 acre-feet.

“The key to this whole thing is finding a way of making everybody happy with their money and not going down this lawsuit thing where we have to start adding a line item to our budget to defend ourselves against developers,” Jenco said.

Les Hock, who oversees the Riverview development, said his project is down to the 11th hour.

“The will-serve letter is the last item we need for the county to be able to record the final map,” he said.

"Without it, the entire project could be at risk of termination, which leaves us in a really poor position given the amount of infrastructure we’ve already constructed, not only in Riverview but elsewhere,'” he said.

Given the modest pace of home sales, Hock added, he has no issue with extending the development over three to four years as outlined in the will-serve letter.

Audience member Tom Shewchuk emphasized the need for growth in the community, with the health of the country club the most important aspect.

“If we don’t get more members, the country club will fall apart in my opinion,” he said. “So please figure out the water issue so we can grow and make Rancho Murieta what we all want it to be.”

Audience member Mike Martel, a former district board member, expressed concern that, ultimately, there might not be enough water for everyone. However, he also voiced sympathy for the FSA 670 developers, acknowledging their substantial investment of millions of dollars.

“I believe you guys are in a very difficult position, and no matter what you do, you are going to piss somebody off,” he told the board. “But I do believe your fiduciary duty is to protect the residents and district. I understand the water, but the 670, to me, is way past disapproving.”

Director Martin Pohll agreed with Martel’s position.

“The board has to be a fiduciary to protect the district and all the residents out here from litigation,” he said. “Lastly, we don’t have a completed master plan which gives us some ammunition for the rejection.”

General Manager Mimi Morris described the work by the consultant (Lisa Maddaus) as very sophisticated.

“I believe in its accuracy and her ability to project that various factors that will influence the community’s water,” she said. “So, in an average year, all of the existing plus the anticipated development would have enough water, just enough. But it is the uncertainty of the draught that pushes it into uncertainty.”

Additional factors include climate change, causing snowpacks to melt earlier, and not having space in the reservoirs.

“Regardless of whether you approve one more house or whatever happens with the country club, the bigger issue is you need to figure out another water supply or another storage option or both,” Morris said.

Butler’s motion to deny the will-serve letters was voted down 3:2 and Booth’s motion to table the discussion until the board had the water plan in their hands also was voted down 3:2. Jenco’s motion to approve the will-serve letters was approved 3:2.