RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A proposal to finalize the draft Integrated Water Master Plan sparked intense debate at the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Improvements Committee meeting on Feb. 4.

Although the committee decided to revisit the topic at its March meeting, the February discussion highlighted key concerns about the study, which is intended to assess the community’s current and future water needs in light of climate change and drought.

The committee also discussed an engineer’s recommendation to improve the efficiency of the two existing water tanks and construct a new one. These enhancements would benefit current customers and future development. See New Water Tank, Tank Improvements are CSD Topics.

The Improvements Committee is made up of two board members: Directors Randy Jenco and John Merchant, Operations Manager Eric Houston, General Manager Mimi Morris, who is currently on leave; and other staff. The committee examines infrastructure issues in depth and makes recommendations to the entire board.

Background

Updating the IWMP became a concern in 2022 when the Rancho North subdivision, proposing 697 lots, updated its application with Sacramento County planners in March. Comments by the late John Sullivan, who represented the developers, increased the sense of urgency.

Although the district extensively advertised its request for proposals to develop an IWMP, it received only one bid: a joint proposal from Maddaus Water Management in California and Adkins Engineering in Oregon. In December 2022, the board voted 4:1 to contract with the consultants.

After the work was underway, the board held several public hearings with the consultants to update the community. The district also presented a three-phase plan on its website. Maddaus concluded the community would have enough water for future development based on certain assumptions and mitigations.

As soon as the public process began, members of Save Our Lakes & Open Spaces (SOLOS) and longtime community activist Janis Eckard raised numerous concerns about some of the assumptions and data used in the study. Even though individual directors acknowledged these concerns, the board ultimately waited to take any significant action until the consultants completed the draft.

After Morris announced at the Oct. 16 board meeting that the consultants had finished the 317-page draft, the board agreed to initiate a 45-day review period and to seek an outside technical review of the study.

Although the board discussed the aspects of the technical review and the incorporation of public comments, they didn’t make any noteworthy decisions at subsequent meetings.

The board composition also changed as of the Dec. 6 meeting when John Merchant, vice president of SOLOS, replaced Martin Pohll on the board and Director Steve Booth became the board president. Merchant and Butler are SOLOS board members. Booth has also been outspoken about his concerns about the study. At that same meeting, the board also voted to place the general manager on leave. Morris had been supportive of the plan as written.

A turning point may have come at the Jan. 15 board meeting when Operations Manager Houston advised against finalizing the draft IWMP, citing its lack of a clear path forward. Houston suggested that the district develop an Urban Water Supply Plan, which the state will require once the district reaches 3,000 water connections and becomes subject to new regulatory requirements as an urban water supplier.

Houston also reported that he had asked Water Systems Consultants, which recently developed an Urban Water Supply Plan and Water Vision report for the City of Folsom, to provide a scope of work for a similar plan for the district.

After some discussion, Booth referred Houston’s proposal to the Improvements Committee for further review.  

Committee Discussion

Although an urban supply water plan was on the agenda at the Feb. 4 Improvements Committee meeting, Houston reported that a Water Systems Consultants representative could not attend to present a scope of work but would attend the March 4 meeting.

Jenco asked Houston about the timeframe for implementing an urban plan after the district reaches 3,000 connections. Houston responded that the district would have a year.

Jenco then inquired about the status of the draft plan: “What’s the plan for the IWMP, if anything?”

Houston replied that would be a question for the board since it wasn’t in his purview to move it beyond the draft. He also referenced community feedback, saying it was unusable.

Jenco challenged his statement: “Who says it’s not usable? You are saying the community is saying that. I’m saying it is usable.”

Merchant countered: “I’m saying it’s not.”

Jenco recalled that before Merchant joined the board, the general manager had arranged meetings with each director and consultant Lisa Maddaus to review the IWMP.

“We had all our questions answered,” Jenco said. “I am totally confident that the report can be finalized and used going forward.”

Jenco then expressed his desire to bring the issue to a head by making it a board action item and asked Merchant if that was possible.

Merchant pushed back, saying the draft plan doesn’t account for Rancho Murieta Properties’ recent decision not to develop the lots behind the reservoirs.

Jenco pointed out that if Merchant had been on the board during the one-on-one sessions with Maddaus, he would have seen how the model worked: “One click of a tab would show the effect of changing an assumption, such as taking out the 39 acres proposed for apartments.”

He emphasized: “None of those assumptions were set in stone. They could be changed with a click of a mouse.”

Merchant maintained: “We should still look at the new set of numbers.”

Jenco said he didn’t believe the final numbers were set.

“Whether it was using Clementia or assuming that the 39 acres were going to be built, all of them were assumptions waiting for us to tell them how to finish the report. That’s where it is sitting, right?” he asked.

Merchant acknowledged he still had unanswered questions about Clementia, irrigating the golf course in the summer with river water, and the assumptions about conservation. However, he agreed they could take it to the board.

Jenco reminded Merchant that he had previously suggested bringing Maddaus to an Improvements Committee meeting to address concerns directly.

“To get all these questions answered face-to-face,” Jenco said.

Merchant said he wasn’t opposed to meeting with Maddaus but also wanted to bring in Adkins, particularly since Adkins had stated that drilling wells wouldn’t support development.

“Why don’t we see what the board wants to do?” Merchant asked.

Jenco agreed, asking, “So are we going to abandon this report and start over, or turn the draft into a final so we can move forward?”

When district secretary Amelia Wilder asked if she should place the matter on the board agenda, Jenco responded that he preferred Maddaus and Adkins to answer questions at the committee level first.

Jenco also reminded the committee that the board initially sought bids for an IWMP and an Urban Water Master Plan. Due to cost concerns, they scaled it down to just an IWMP, accepting the sole bid from Maddaus and Adkins.

“In my mind, the plan was to finalize this plan, and then when it needed to be turned into the Urban Water Plan, they would do it for a reasonable amount of money that would mirror the difference between their original price and what we scaled it down to,” Jenco said.

Merchant reiterated his concerns about the plan’s assumptions but stated he no longer disputed the data in the draft. He also expressed his belief that the draft IWMP does not align with the requirements of an Urban Water Master Plan as specified by the State Water Code.

Merchant said the next step would be formatting the data in the IWMP in light of the new information and meeting with the new consulting firm.

“Then, when we get all that, I guess we can move forward to make a decision. At least, in my opinion, that’s where we are,” he said.

Audience member Jim Farrell said bringing the draft finalization to the board at the next meeting would be a “big, big, huge PR problem.”

Jenco clarified that he wasn’t suggesting putting it on the next board meeting agenda but that the fundamental question remained: “Are we going to finalize it or abandon it?”

Merchant responded, “I don’t see how we can finalize the draft IWMP since the suggested mitigation in it, in my opinion, is wrong.”

Merchant also emphasized that he wanted to hear from the new consultants before deciding about finalizing the plan.

Farrell acknowledged the issue’s complexity, telling the committee, “You’re dealing with a tough issue, and I don’t think you’ve got the answer yet.” He encouraged them to keep working on it until they could bring a clear recommendation to the board.

Merchant agreed that when the new consultant engineer presented at the next Improvements Committee meeting, they would discuss whether to build upon the draft IWMP or not.

He asked Jenco if that approach worked for him, and Jenco agreed.

The district secretary then confirmed that only the new consultant would present at the next meeting, not Maddaus or Adkins.

Houston also reported that he had found a spreadsheet that appeared to be the Maddaus model referenced by Jenco. He suggested that they load it up at the next meeting to see what happens when different assumptions are turned off and on.

Two other audience members, Tom Shewchuk and Richard Gehrs, also commented during the discussion.