RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - An intriguing option to supplement Rancho Murieta’s water supply by connecting to the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) dominated the discussion when the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Improvements Committee met on Nov. 5.

That option wasn’t included in the draft Integrated Water Master Plan (IWMP). According to comments at the meeting, the ballpark estimate of the cost to construct a pipeline conveying treated water to Rancho Murieta would be comparable to the IWMP’s estimated cost to dig three emergency wells for $15 million. The draft IWMP also indicated that the low-producing wells would cost even more once treatment options were added.

Should a pipeline prove feasible, CSD water supply augmentation fees would be one of the myriad funding sources. The fees, which go into reserves, are charged on new developments to fund the expansion of the community’s water supply system.

Bob Keil, the developer of the Residences subdivision, asked that the $30,000 pipeline feasibility study be placed on the agenda, saying: “Wouldn’t everybody want to know whether we could get water from the water agency down the street to protect Rancho Murieta forever?”

Other meeting topics included groundwater recharge possibilities, researching statutory authority to use Clementia as an additional water supply, seeking an outside technical review of the draft IWMP, issues with Lost Lake, preliminary plans to relocate the Murieta Village pipelines, federal grant opportunities, and updates on major infrastructure projects including the Granlees Dam Safety Improvement and repair of the water transmission line between the Cosumnes River and Calero Reservoir.

A recording of the Improvement Committee meeting has been posted on the district’s website. The meeting minutes also will be posted and included in the packet before the Nov. 20 board meeting (after press time).

The Improvements Committee is comprised of CSD Directors Randy Jenco and Martin Pohll, Operations Director Eric Houston, General Manager Mimi Morris and other staff. The committee looks at infrastructure issues in depth and makes recommendations to the entire board.

Pipeline Discussion

Houston kicked off the discussion by explaining that CSD had received a request to direct $30,000 from its Water Supply Augmentation Reserve Funds to pay for a formal analysis of the viability of connecting with the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) to provide an additional source of water for the community. 

Houston said that the community currently relies on a single source of water although the district is approaching 3,000 water connections.  For districts with fewer than 3,000 connections, California SB552 mandates having two sources of water by 2027, which could mean both a primary and a secondary source or an emergency option.

“The proposal from staff," Houston added, "is that we move forward with a water modeling study by the SCWA as a possible alternative source of treated drinking water.”

The proposal spurred discussion. Jenco confirmed with Morris that she wanted the proposal to go before the board. Houston also clarified, “The study would be modeling, not a preliminary design.” 

Pohll raised a point about alternative options, suggesting that the $30,000 could potentially fund other projects that might yield more water. “You need to say which is most feasible and then do a study to see if feasible,” Pohll argued.

Jenco disagreed.

“I don't know how you decide what's the best option to go after unless you have all the facts in front of you,” he responded. “And how do you have all the facts in front of you unless you start pursuing some of this stuff and get into the nuts and bolts of how this is going to happen and what it's going to cost? That $30,000 is to find out if it is feasible, how much it would cost.”

Pohll countered, “You can't pursue all of them at one time, because you're going to run out of money. For instance, with a well, you have to commission someone to go deeper and see if that's feasible.”

Houston reiterated the necessity of the study for long-term resilience. "The district currently only has one primary source of water and some storage, but that poses a significant risk if there’s an event on the river or with that treatment facility," he explained.

The study would be low-cost, “giving us a little further step forward in risk and resiliency, where we feel that we have safety and security with our water supply, Houston said. “This is a finished treated water source, and it’s very common for entities to have a multiple emergency connection types.”

Pohll asked Houston if it would cost more than $10 million to construct a pipeline. Houston said it would but described the $30,000 study as a worthwhile investment to clarify potential options.

Jenco underscored the need to investigate every possibility, saying, “It has to be the board’s number one priority to find more water.” He expressed hope that the staff was exploring other options, including the costs of drilling new wells and statutory requirements to use Clementia Reservoir.

Houston mentioned other possible options, such as groundwater banking and water wheeling, emphasizing that “pushing those decisions further and further down the road only makes them more and more expensive, especially with rising construction and infrastructure costs,” he said. “I think the first time we have a large water outage; people will be unpleasantly surprised by what that looks like.”

Further cost considerations came into play. Pohll asked about the estimated costs of wells, to which Houston responded that each well could cost about $5 million—excluding water treatment and integration into the system. The cost for three would be $15 million. Per the draft IWMP, they wouldn’t produce large volumes of water and would only provide an emergency supply.

Morris clarified that the pipeline was not considered in the draft IWMP nor was groundwater recharge. 

She mentioned a recent Sloughhouse Resource Conservation meeting, saying, “They were saying, ‘Give us your excess, and then we'll give it back to you when you need it,” Morris reported. “I do think looking at all the alternatives is responsible.”

Houston noted that the SCWA study would model the feasibility of delivering the necessary volume, but Pohll pointed out the spending $30,000 won’t tell the district how much it would cost.

Morris told him when she first called SCWA, she was given a ballpark pipeline cost of $12 to $15 million. 

“They just threw it out there,” she said. “But that is in (cost) range of the wells..”

Jenco referenced an article from the Business Journal about Reynan and Bartis’s plans to develop 5,000 homes at Grant Line Road and Sunrise Boulevard.  

“This is not like pie-in-the-sky stuff. They’re moving this way,” he pointed out. 

Houston confirmed that SCWA had a substantial water right of 100 million gallons per day. He also said that contractual negotiations for supply options could potentially follow the study.

The committee discussion concluded with Jenco recommending “Let’s move it to the board,” with Pohll agreeing, "I think this is weighty enough that the whole board needs to weigh in."

Public comments

In public comments, Keil, the developer of the Residences subdivision, said he was the one who initially reached out to CSD about the potential pipeline connection. He noted that SCWA planned to extend services to Grant Line, with possible reimbursement if a developer were to bring the line further. 

“Since developers are paying augmentation fees,” Keil argued, “it would be inconceivable that the district wouldn’t direct money they’ve collected to try to find out exactly what it would take to get water out here, no matter how much it costs.” 

Keil concluded by asking, “Wouldn’t everybody want to know whether we could get water from the water agency down the street to protect Rancho Murieta forever?”

Not everyone was in favor. Board member-elect John Merchant voiced his opposition. “It’s not consistent with our master plan, which really shows us as a self-contained community,” he said.

Nor should the district spend $30,000 “for somebody to tell us, well, maybe we don’t have an appropriate right to give you the water,” Merchant said.