RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Although not on the agenda, a potential development moratorium dominated public comment at the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board meeting on Jan. 21.

The issue has taken on new urgency ahead of a public hearing on whether to declare a water shortage emergency. The hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. Feb. 10 at the Rancho Murieta Country Club, where a decision could be made. It was originally scheduled for Jan. 27 but had to be postponed.

Only members of the audience raised moratorium-related concerns at the Jan. 21 meeting, and the board did not address those comments.

Developer Response

Speakers at the meeting included three representatives of Rancho Murieta Properties, which owns the proposed 561-lot Rancho North subdivision. Rancho North would be the only development affected by a moratorium.

Partner Carol Anderson Ward said her family and Rancho Murieta Properties have long sought to help address the community’s water challenges, including offering wells for water augmentation in 1994 and again in 2018. She said the district ultimately did not use a $500,000 Proposition 84 grant that had been intended for well development.

Ward said her partnership has invested about $5 million in the water treatment plant upgrade and augmentation efforts. (This was under a 2014 Facilities Service Agreement with the district, which developers could argue contractually guarantees water service in exchange for their contribution toward water infrastructure.)

The partnership cut the number of planned lots in half to reduce community impacts and developed a hotel, shopping center and other improvements to strengthen Rancho Murieta.

Ward said she wants developers, the district and the Rancho Murieta Association to work cooperatively on water solutions and said board approval of a moratorium would hurt Rancho Murieta residents.

“We don’t want to have to sue this board or the CSD to get what we deserve,” Ward said.

Rancho Murieta Properties partner Tim deRegt said residents need clear answers about how a water moratorium could affect property values, home financing, water rates and who would ultimately bear the costs before the board considers such action. He said many people he speaks with are either unaware of the proposal or do not understand its implications.

DeRegt said a recent letter and online commentary from Destination Rancho Murieta point to the same conclusion: The community needs a fuller discussion and better information. He said it is appropriate to discuss a moratorium now, but not to move forward with a vote yet.

Rancho Murieta Properties project manager Jeff Pearson said he was reinforcing Ward’s point that the district hasn’t reached out to the developers to collaborate on water solutions.

“There really is a pathway,” he said.

Resident Comments

Longtime community advocate Janis Eckard supported declaring a water emergency and development moratorium, saying the action is not “rushed.” She said about 2,000 residents petitioned for it more than a year ago, but no action has been taken since.

For the past 36 years, Eckard said, the Community Services District has relied on unachievable assumptions and inaccurate data in its studies, creating the appearance that Rancho Murieta has an adequate water supply to fully build out, despite what she said the district has known since the 1976-77 drought.

“From my perspective, running the community out of water is what’s truly risky, particularly considering the fact that Rancho Murieta is a designated wildfire area with limited evacuation options,” she said.

Tom Shewchuk urged the board not to rush into a vote, but to instead use the Feb. 10 hearing to gather opinions and then take a few months to decide.

Carol Prinzo said that water shortfall issues in a drought and the lack of a secondary water source should be solved by a collaborative effort of the district, the developers and the Rancho Murieta Association.

“I’ve been asking since day one, ‘Why can’t we all sit down together?’”

Mike Martel asked the board to examine how a moratorium could affect bank lending and home sales in the community.

Maria Caudill was concerned that homeowners don’t clearly understand how a possible water moratorium would affect them personally, especially for “really tangible things” like bank loans and selling homes. She urged the board to present a concrete, step‑by‑step plan for what it will do after the moratorium meeting in either outcome, so people can regain confidence.

A letter included in the board meeting packet from resident Nellie Bloom also addressed the possibility of a moratorium. She urged the board to pause any decision, citing the lack of permanent leadership, unanswered questions about property values and costs, and the need for more information and public discussion before taking such a consequential step.

Anonymous Group Raises Concerns

Destination Rancho Murieta is an anonymous group that has posted online warnings about a potential moratorium. It has said that members are residents who remain unnamed out of fear of reprisals. A  Jan. 20 post listed “5 critical questions RMCSD should answer before implementing a water Moratorium.”

Because the group’s online posts raised concerns similar to those expressed by Rancho Murieta Properties, the River Valley Times approached three RMP representatives outside the CSD board meeting.

When asked who was writing the Destination Rancho Murieta posts, all three said they did not know.

“We would like to know ourselves,” deRegt added.

Earlier in the meeting, Eckard criticized online statements circulated by Destination Rancho Murieta, calling them misleading and intended to undermine the proposed water emergency.

“In my opinion, the document that has been circulated has been disingenuous and solely intended to defeat the water emergency measure,” she said.

Eckard argued that the costs and impacts associated with declaring a water emergency were significantly exaggerated, while the time and expense required to pursue land acquisition as an alternative were understated.

She also questioned the group’s approach, saying that if the proposal were a sincere attempt to resolve water-shortfall issues, it should have been brought first to CSD, the Rancho Murieta Association and other stakeholders rather than being broadly distributed to the community.

Legal and planning background

For more on the proposed moratorium, see the Jan. 23 issue of the River Valley Times. (Please link to: 

Two directors, Randy Jenco and Tim Maybee, opposed considering a moratorium, but they were outvoted by Board President John Merchant and Directors Linda Butler and Bill Gere.

A notice on the district’s website states that the board is considering a water emergency declaration based on analysis in a draft Integrated Water Master Plan evaluating water supply under drought conditions. The draft includes modeling of a worst-case scenario comparable to the 1977-78 drought and identifies potential supply constraints under those conditions.

Under that worst-case model, the district would have little margin to serve existing customers and would face a severe shortfall at full buildout. The document does not conclude that the district would run out of water under normal conditions or during droughts comparable to the four statewide droughts declared since the historic drought. The district has never had a secondary water supply.

The board’s website notice also states, “If the Board determines that current demands threaten supplies needed for human consumption, sanitation and fire protection, a water emergency will be declared.”

State water law generally ties emergency declarations to actual or imminent supply constraints, and declarations based primarily on planning models rather than documented shortages may face closer scrutiny.

Relying on the draft 2024 Integrated Water Master Plan, which has not been approved by the board, could also pose legal risks if the district is sued after enacting a moratorium.

Maybee, who opposes a moratorium, raised that concern at the Dec. 21 board meeting. He said that unless the board formally adopts the draft IWMP, it must continue relying on the 2010 plan for its water supply figures. The 2010 plan, along with a 2016 Water Supply Assessment, both concluded that the district had sufficient water for full buildout.

District Counsel Patrick Enright said Maybee had a point.

“We should at least have accepted the numbers, even if we do not accept all of the conclusions and recommendations,” Enright said. “That would give us current figures rather than relying on those from 2010 or 2016.”