RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board on Jan. 21 held a wide-ranging discussion on what it would take to convert Lake Clementia into a drinking water source, revealing both the regulatory complexity of the process and differences over whether the effort is worth pursuing at all.

District counsel Patrick Enright opened the discussion by outlining a five-step framework for moving forward. He said the district is beginning conversations with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to understand permitting requirements, which could vary depending on when the district has more than 3,000 water connections. Enright cautioned that even with legislative approval, exemptions granted to similar reservoirs elsewhere in the state came with extensive conditions.

Enright suggested the district explore limiting potable use of Lake Clementia to drought periods only, potentially preserving recreational use in normal years. He also recommended learning from other agencies, such as Modesto and El Dorado irrigation districts, that have secured exemptions, including whether lobbyists were used. Any effort, he said, would ultimately require evaluation of infrastructure upgrades needed to make the lake suitable for potable use.

Travis Bohannon, chief plant operator, reported on initial contacts with state drinking water regulators. He said Austin Peterson, a senior state regulator, advised the district not to proceed further until a formal permit application is submitted, adding that without one, the state would not allocate staff time to review the proposal. Peterson did provide a preliminary list of roughly 20 water quality tests. Bohannon estimated the cost at about $10,000.

Bohannon said the testing could provide a baseline but warned much of it would likely have to be repeated once a permit application is filed. He added that without a rare exemption, Lake Clementia would have to become a “no body contact” reservoir to qualify for potable use.

Board member Linda Butler asked whether timing or season mattered for testing. Bohannon replied that contaminants such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium and E. coli do not disappear seasonally and would be present regardless of when testing occurs.

Board member Tim Maybee said the discussion reinforced the need to fold Lake Clementia into the district’s existing water working group, sometimes referred to as the “go find water” group. He argued that assigning responsibility to a standing group would prevent the issue from stalling between meetings and ensure coordination with other stakeholders, including the Rancho Murieta Association.

Director Randy Jenco agreed, saying the working group already includes the relevant parties and could serve as the conduit between staff and the board. Jenco chairs the working group, which also includes Bohannon, Rod Hart, Rancho Murieta Association general manager; Jeff Pearson, the project manager for Rancho Murieta Properties; and Tom Shewchuk, representing the Rancho Murieta Country Club.

Board member Bill Gere voiced concern about cost and timeline uncertainties, citing potential CEQA review and legislative action. He urged staff to first establish realistic timelines and cost ranges – whether the process would take years or decades, and whether it would cost $1 million or $10 million – before investing further effort.

Board President John Merchant raised the possibility that the district may need to retain a specialized water attorney to navigate the transition from a recreational license to potable and possibly irrigation uses. Merchant also suggested adding irrigation use first, which would face fewer regulatory hurdles.

Merchant also proposed that the district consider recycled water as a central component of any Lake Clementia strategy, describing it as a potentially “game-changing” source.

Merchant said that under state law enacted in 2023, the district now has the right to pursue permits allowing indirect potable reuse of recycled wastewater.

 Under this approach, treated recycled water could be conveyed to Lake Calero, blended with other surface water, processed through the district’s water treatment plant and ultimately delivered as drinking water. 

He said this method is already used at scale in places such as Orange County.

Merchant emphasized that recycled water represents a guaranteed and growing supply. He said the district already produces hundreds of acre-feet of recycled water annually, stored in ponds, and that volume increases as development continues. Rather than viewing recycled water as a disposal challenge, he argued it should be treated as a strategic asset that could reduce reliance on river diversions and groundwater pumping.

He said one option would be to move recycled water geographically – potentially via existing or modified infrastructure – to Lake Calero, where it could be blended and treated for potable use. While acknowledging that additional testing, permitting, time and cost would be required, Merchant said the reliability of the supply could fundamentally change how the district manages drought risk.

Merchant also tied recycled water use to Lake Clementia, suggesting it could play a complementary role even if Clementia is not converted to potable use. He said recycled water could be used for irrigation – including the golf course – reducing demand for potable water during droughts. In emergency situations, Lake Clementia water could be reserved as a backup supply rather than a primary source.

He further noted that current water rights permit restrictions discourage use of Lake Clementia by limiting how much water can be stored there without reducing storage in Lake Calero. 

Merchant said lifting or modifying that restriction could allow the district to refresh water in Lake Clementia with diverted river water while drawing older water out for irrigation use, potentially improving water quality over time.

Merchant said none of these options were meaningfully evaluated in the draft Integrated Water Master Plan, despite earlier discussions about recycled water dating back several years. He expressed frustration that the legislation enabling indirect potable reuse was anticipated long before it was enacted but never incorporated into the district’s planning framework.

“This goes hand in hand with the permitting discussion for Lake Clementia,” Merchant said, arguing that recycled water permits and surface water permits should be considered together rather than in isolation.

Maybee said Merchant’s comments further justified assigning the issue to the water working group, where recycled water, Lake Clementia and permitting issues could be evaluated together.

Jenco said his preference would be to reserve Lake Clementia as an emergency-only supply, possibly sending water to the golf course during severe droughts, while relying on recycled water distributed through purple pipe for irrigation in new developments. He questioned the need to pump water to the treatment plant at all.

Bohannon asked whether the board still wanted to proceed with baseline testing. Jenco responded that the working group should evaluate that question and said he was not inclined to proceed until necessary.

Merchant cautioned that the technical complexity of these ideas exceeds what residents or board members can handle themselves, and he said professional engineering firms would be needed. 

He argued that a true urban water management plan should separate supply-and-demand reconciliation from engineering solutions.

Maybee agreed, saying the working group should refine options until clear cost and timeline thresholds are reached, then return to the board for direction.

Jenco noted the district already has a costly proposal to redo the Integrated Water Master Plan and warned that engineering firms typically start from scratch rather than rely on prior studies.

Audience member Jim Farrell urged the board to wait for groundwater test-well results before pursuing conversion of Lake Clementia, saying its roughly 400-acre-foot yield should be weighed against potentially cheaper well alternatives. He cautioned that while initial testing costs are modest, CEQA review, permitting and legislative efforts could be substantial, and said productive wells that can be tied together by pipeline could deliver comparable supply without the regulatory complexity of certifying a recreational reservoir for potable use.

Audience member Jay Hannum, who is employed by another water district, raised concerns about recycled water quality, asking whether pharmaceuticals and other compounds are removed during treatment. Bohannon said the district treats recycled water to Title 22 standards and removes coliforms, but Hannum warned that introducing recycled water into a closed reservoir could cause long-term accumulation of contaminants.

The discussion concluded without formal action, with the board directing the water working group to further evaluate Lake Clementia, recycled water integration, regulatory pathways, costs and timelines before bringing recommendations back to the board.