RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The need for a third water tank was again the dominant topic when the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Improvements Committee met on Dec. 4.

But the only action taken after an hour of discussion was to agree to a request by Bob Keil, the developer of the Residences subdivision. Keil asked whether the district engineer and his engineer could collaborate on calculations to determine how many homes the Rio Oso Tank could serve, given the new throttling valve under construction at the water treatment plant, landscaping restrictions in his subdivision and the implementation of water conservation.

Saying it would be easy enough to consider different criteria, District Engineer Joe Dominichelli indicated he could have an answer by the next committee meeting. In March, when the engineer proposed a new throttle valve to regulate water levels in the Rio Oso tank, he estimated it would enable the tank to serve 50 more homes based on the average daily flow.

In between, three related topics came up. The first was the need for a third tank for emergency storage, even without the development.  The second concerned a recent letter that Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder sent to Keil requiring that he pay the entire cost of a third water tank. She announced at the meeting that the letter was no longer valid.

Domenichelli also presented renderings of how a third water tank would appear from a distance. Of the five locations, it couldn’t be seen in three, was barely visible in the fourth and was unobtrusive in the fifth. See the rendering accompanying this story.

Jeff Pearson, a representative from Rancho Murieta Properties, which is proposing the Rancho North subdivision, also spoke about another water-related issue. 

“In 2012, you commissioned a study, and I think that there was grant money involved with the commissioning of that study that lasted more than two years,” he said. “And you guys got all the way down the road to bid. I mean, you had electromagnetic studies done. You had wells identified… The thing went out to bid… and it got killed (in approximately 2015 to 2016), he said.

In other topics at the meeting, the committee considered an audience member’s request to set time limits on board meetings, approved a change to a water meter program to make it more cost-effective and briefly discussed water conservation. The board also received an update on repairs at the 6B lift station.

The Improvements Committee is comprised of Board President John Merchant, Director Randy Jenco, Interim Operations Manager Travis Bohannon, Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder and other staff. The committee looks at infrastructure issues in depth and makes recommendations to the entire board.

Bohannon placed an update from Keil as the first agenda item, saying that he had stated at the last board meeting that he had a plan to get water to his development without the need for a third tank.

Keil told the committee that demand for his project could probably be met without a new tank by tying into the Van Vleck tank with boosters. But he argued that would be a poor use of money because it only solves his subdivision’s problem and leaves the district’s broader emergency storage and Rio Oso rehabilitation issues untouched. He said he would rather put those dollars “into a bigger pot” for a solution that benefits both the district and his project.

Keil also asked if the district’s engineer and his own engineer would work together to calculate “real numbers” on how many homes could be served by the existing Rio Oso tank, with improved valving and conservation. 

“So my request to the improvements committee is to allow our engineers to work together on a solution, cost sharing for valving communications, and remodel of the Rio so tank and see if we can make it work that way.”

When Merchant pressed Keil about a solution with or without a third tank, he said, “I would like to look at the options. I thought we were on the right track with the tank and with us paying a share of it through impact fees. “

That was before Wilder sent him the Nov. 19 demand letter. 

“We are talking about 130 lots. You can’t balance a $7, 8, 3, or 4 million tank on 130 lots,” he said. “Even if we wanted to do it, we couldn’t do it.”

Bohannon and Domenichelli agreed that Rio Oso needs work and that the district has an emergency storage problem. They also drew an important line between daily demand and emergency protection.

Bohannon reported on the condition of the Rio Oso tank based on an inspection done by a company hoping to win rehab work. Without even entering the tank, they found serious deterioration: The interior ladder is almost rusted through, some of the top steel was not properly coated during the 2009 rehab and is now badly rusting, and they strongly recommend a complete rehab of Rio Oso within about five years. 

“It’s in need of some love,” he said.

Bohannon also noted that, after the earlier incident in which a hydrant break drained Rio Oso and forced an emergency “stop using water” notice, staff have long discussed the need for additional emergency storage. 

At the same time, he was clear that, as of now, the existing system can meet the current daily demand for the 800 existing homes without adding a new tank. The emergency storage question is a different, longer term issue.

Domenichelli focused on the longer term and system risk. He said he has repeatedly stated that the district does not have enough emergency storage in the Rio Oso Tank pressure zone (serving 800 homes above Guadalupe Drive.)

Using examples like the hydrant incident and a week of 100 plus degree weather where Rio Oso’s level fluctuated dangerously, the engineer explained that if a key supply line failed in midsummer, the existing storage would not provide enough time to repair it while still reliably serving customers.

In his view, simply rehabbing Rio Oso without adding more storage volume does not solve the core problem: Rio Oso “is not going to get bigger,” he said.

During the discussion, Jenco said he was confused about a district letter that Keil said required him to cover the entire cost of a third tank.

Wilder said it was the letter that Merchant and Gere worked on, indicating that District Counsel Patrick Enright was also involved.

After Wilder showed Jenco the letter, he said he recalled seeing a copy “in closed session, in which we decided not to send it. This district is out of control… You people are running this district like you own it.”

Jenco said he was not questioning whether the district has enough water or needs another tank. 

“I’m talking about the process that’s going on and the policies that are being ignored by the board and the acting general manager. Something has got to change.”

Keil provided the River Valley Times with Wilder’s letter, which she emailed on Nov. 19. The letter stated that Keil would be required to provide a water tank before the district would issue a water meter for the 51st lot. (When Domenichelli first proposed a throttling valve, he estimated it would allow Rio Oso to serve 50 additional homes.)

“The future demand of your project has created the demand for this infrastructure in the 198-lot subdivision. The district has, at this time, no current demand for an additional potable water storage tank to service the Residences. Therefore, the construction of a new tank is the sole responsibility of the Residences’ Development.”

Wilder announced that the letter had been rescinded at the end of the discussion about a third tank. 

“I say that until further notice, that letter is not valid or accurate, that we need to have a lot more discussion: looking at the developer fee study, and working on how much water we actually need and what our emergency supply is,” she said

Earlier, the River Valley Times asked Jenco why a letter about a development matter had been discussed in executive session. That is because the issue does not fall under the limited exceptions in California’s open meetings law that allow closed sessions.

“I think that is a question for Patrick (Enright),” Jenco said. “It will absolutely be asked.”

Enright answered the question in a Dec. 11 letter to the board, saying the Brown Act allows closed sessions for significant exposure to threatened litigation.

“The closed session was to address Bob Keil’s repeated threats of litigation if he does not receive his water meters for his project,” he wrote.