RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - After a sometimes heated discussion, the Rancho Murieta Community Services District board voted 3-2 on Sept. 17 to begin the process of enacting a water moratorium on new development. More than 40 people attended the meeting.

Board President John Merchant and Directors Linda Butler and Bill Gere supported the move, while Directors Randy Jenco and Tim Maybee opposed it.

District Counsel Patrick Enright said state law requires the board to make formal findings before a moratorium can be imposed, including that “ordinary demands cannot be met without depleting the water supply to the point where it becomes insufficient for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection.” He said those findings must be based on collected data and the Integrated Water Master Plan and addressed in one or more public hearings. Enright also stressed that the board will need to determine how to treat the roughly 300 subdivision lots that already hold will-serve letters.

Supporters of a moratorium argued the community needs time to identify a secondary water source, possibly new wells or emergency use of Clementia Lake, and determine how costs will be shared. They said that Rancho Murieta lacks sufficient water to sustain future development and could potentially run out of water during a drought. Opponents countered that a moratorium would invite costly lawsuits and harm property values, and they questioned whether there is any evidence of a shortage.

The moratorium debate first surfaced at the July 17, 2024, board meeting after then-Director Steve Booth asked to place an action item on the agenda to declare a water emergency until the community’s water capacity could be evaluated. Although the board discussed the proposal, it did not take any action. District counsel Patrick Enright noted that the district “isn’t quite there yet” and pointed to other complicating factors.

Several days later, Merchant – then-vice president of Save Our Lakes & Open Spaces and not yet on the board – launched the moratorium petition drive. SOLOS collected 2,025 signatures and presented them to the board in December, but directors did not take action until the Sept. 17 meeting.

“The only question is, do you get us all sued into oblivion on the way there, or did you act like public officials and do your homework and do the right thing?” he said. “I’ve never seen such a goddamn circus in my life. This isn’t about whether you’re pro-development or not.”

Former board member Booth supported beginning the moratorium process. He said he and Butler voted against issuing will-serve letters to already entitled subdivisions a year ago “on the basis we needed to make sure we had all the facts and would have sufficient water to honor the will-serve letters.”

Developer Greg Dyer, CEO of Rancho Murieta Properties, questioned the need for a moratorium. He said there is no documented shortage, pointing out that the district holds a 6,000-acre-foot diversion right but has never used more than 2,000 acre-feet in a year. He said past requests for water-rights extensions were based on slow construction, not supply problems.

“What the community really needs to do is follow the law and not go out on some sort of wild goose chase that’s going to cost the district millions of dollars,” Dyer said.

Resident Jim Farrell, who served on a working group that reviewed the draft Integrated Water Master Plan, said that the community has been discussing augmenting the supply for 15 years.

“So to the degree that the moratorium leverages it in that direction, I’m in total favor of it,” he said. “To the degree that it’s doing nothing but causing a waste of time and stopping us from resolving these other important issues, I am opposed.”

Carol Anderson Ward, principal investor in Rancho Murieta Properties, stressed her long ties to the community. She said that without projects she helped bring in – including the Bel Air shopping center and equestrian center – Rancho Murieta “would be a hick town.” She also addressed SOLOS directly: “The open spaces are not yours. They are mine. I’ve taken out a lot of development to keep those open spaces, and I would like some credit from you.”

Ward’s main argument was that more housing is needed to support aging infrastructure. 

“It’s going to be a whole lot more if you don’t get help from new housing, new residents and new income coming into this community,” she said.

Ward added that while an alternative supply and emergency backup are needed, “Who is going to pay for it? I am done,” she said. “I’m asking for reason. I’m asking for help, and I want to save this community and make it what it was supposed to be when it started out 45 years ago.”

Resident Tom Shewchuk, who is buying a custom lot in the Residences subdivision, urged the district to honor the will-serve letters, noting he is about to invest $300,000. He praised the water expertise of Operations Manager Eric Houston, currently on leave, saying Houston told him “the normal process will take care of itself and that a moratorium is not needed and adds no value.”

Resident Bob Keil, the developer of the Residences subdivision, said a moratorium should only be considered if the well study now underway reveals that groundwater is not a viable option.

Resident Steve Grove asked the board to explain the benefit of declaring a moratorium, saying he had not heard a clear rationale.

Before the discussion turned to the moratorium itself, Merchant reported that he had met with Sacramento County officials about the Rancho North project. He said the application now covers 561 lots and no longer includes the back-lake parcels. Rancho Murieta Properties has also not applied to develop the 39 acres next to the CSD office, he added, noting that new applications would be required for those properties.

Jenco spoke strongly against the moratorium. 

“It’s an initiation of let’s pay a lot of legal fees: That’s where this thing would head,” he said. He argued the board should focus on expanding supply rather than “kicking the can down the road.”

Maybee voted no but did not state a reason.

Butler called the moratorium a temporary step, saying, “It would give us the time we need to do and what we have been doing,” she said.

Gere, the newest director, cast the deciding vote, saying past development often proceeded without adequate infrastructure. 

“I’m all for a moratorium if it leads residents and developers to come together and talk about how to secure additional water,” he said.

Merchant also highlighted the community’s vulnerability during droughts, noting that the district cannot pump water from the river for 153 days each year. 

“The problem magnifies if you get into a repetitive situation where the worst-case scenario is you start a second year, and now you don’t have reservoirs that are completely full,” he said.

Merchant closed the discussion by moving to initiate the process. 

“Again, I clarify that this is to begin the process, and when all the data and the public testimony is accumulated, we will make a decision.”

Two separate but related concerns surfaced. A new homebuilder at the Residences subdivision said the district refused to inspect open trenches at three construction sites or let him pay water connection fees. Residents also raised potential conflicts of interest for board members voting on the moratorium. They pointed to Jenco’s purchase of 11 acres that he could subdivide later, and the circulation of the moratorium petition by Merchant and Butler. Both matters will be addressed in future coverage.

Merchant said he preferred to hold two public hearings instead of one. When Enright asked if he wanted to schedule the first for the Oct. 15 board meeting, Merchant replied that he would decide on the dates later.