RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A long-running debate over Rancho Murieta’s water future shifted to groundwater wells at the Jan. 21 meeting of the Rancho Murieta Community Services District board, as directors and advisers wrestled with a fundamental question: how much well water the community actually needs, and how confidently that number can be determined before millions of dollars are spent.

The discussion centered on recent work by the Ad Hoc Water Working Group, chaired by Director Randy Jenco, which has been exploring potential groundwater sites as part of the district’s broader water-supply planning. Besides Jenco, the group includes Travis Bohannon, CSD chief plant operator; Rod Hart, Rancho Murieta Association general manager; Jeff Pearson, project manager for Rancho Murieta Properties; and Tom Shewchuk, representing the community.

Jenco opened the agenda item by reporting that the district had received a final siting report from Water Systems Consulting on Jan. 12. The firm identified six potential test-well locations, with the working group adding a seventh. Jenco said three of the sites appear promising, and three do not, and emphasized that the district would not re-drill a location that had already been tested in earlier work by Dunn Engineering.

However, Jenco flagged what quickly became the central point of contention: The WSC report references that roughly 3,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater production is needed. Jenco said the water group does not agree with that number, does not consider it reliable and could not reconcile it with past studies. According to Jenco, WSC said the figure came from earlier staff or board discussions and declined to remove it from its report.

Shewchuk said WSC’s findings were generally consistent with historic data, particularly for wells south of Highway 16. He noted that WSC’s estimated yields at the equestrian center site aligned with Dunn test results from the 1980s near the church and airport. Using rough calculations, Shewchuk said three wells producing about 300 gallons per minute each, running continuously, would generate roughly 1,500 acre-feet per year: close to the district’s recent annual usage of about 1,600 acre-feet.

Shewchuk agreed that the community does not need 3,000 acre-feet per year from wells. In his view, 500 to 1,000 acre-feet per year could be sufficient during drought conditions when combined with conservation measures.

Pearson placed the current debate in a historical context. He cited a 1994 study tied to the Anderson Ranch that estimated roughly 1,700 acre-feet would be needed for full buildout plans larger than those currently proposed. Later, Dunn Engineering, between 2012 and 2018, with a Proposition 84 grant, concluded that only about 300 acre-feet of supplemental water was needed for a moderate buildout. That number was later doubled to 600 acre-feet to add resiliency.

Those earlier engineering figures, Pearson said, are dramatically lower than the 3,000 acre-feet now being discussed. He also questioned why the district terminated the prior well program in 2018 and said he could not find a clear explanation. Pearson said he was uncomfortable moving forward with a large and costly well program without a current, professional engineering analysis that clearly establishes how much groundwater is actually required.

Pearson emphasized that potential new water tanks have been designed with detailed engineering, and wells should be no different. He said designing a system around an inflated target, such as 3,000 acre-feet per year, could unnecessarily limit viable well sites and significantly increase costs. Any reconciliation of those numbers, he said, must be done by hydrogeologists and engineers, not the working group.

Audience member Jim Farrell, who participated in an earlier working group that analyzed the draft IWMP, traced the origin of the 3,000-acre-feet figure to an IWMP table prepared by engineer Lisa Maddaus. He pointed to a table in the draft showing that meeting historic drought needs for existing residents would require about 1,200 gallons per minute, or roughly 1,936 acre-feet per year. A separate scenario – historic drought at full buildout without Lake Clementia – assumed 2,000 gallons per minute, equating to about 3,226 acre-feet per year.

Farrell said the 3,000 acre-foot figure is at least traceable to the Maddaus draft, but he emphasized that the IWMP was only a draft, was never adopted and was based on older buildout assumptions. He urged the board to develop a comprehensive, up-to-date plan and to carefully assess the relative costs of the options. Depending on what the new well work shows, he suggested, it might prove more cost effective to add another well rather than pursue an expensive Lake Clementia conversion.

Board President John Merchant echoed concerns about relying on the draft IWMP, noting that multiple prior Maddaus studies and water supply assessments dating back to 2006 consistently concluded the district had adequate water. The recent draft, he said, abruptly shifted to showing shortages affecting existing residents, the two entitled subdivisions, and future development during an extreme drought (as occurred in 1977-1978).

Merchant noted that, under the draft Maddaus/IWMP, the district would already be in Stage 5 emergency by the second month of 2023 and essentially stay there, which he said made the mitigation framework unusable. He argued that only the core supply-and-demand and reservoir-volume chapter of the draft is worth salvaging. Before handing anything to a new consultant, the district should adjust the recycled water number, remove the roughly 450 acre-feet “industrial” category and update the buildout assumptions.

Merchant emphasized that recent actual water plant production numbers – about 1,750 acre-feet per year over the past five years – provide a critical real-world check. He also noted that Senate Bill 552, requiring that small water districts have a backup water supply, focuses on average daily demand, making actual production data especially important. Before committing to major construction, he said, the district should first reconcile supply and demand, then separately design how to meet that need.

Returning to the discussion, Jenco said the IWMP was a draft for a reason and that many of his questions were never answered before Maddaus was dismissed. He said it relied on full buildout and pre-reduction development assumptions that no longer apply, and he no longer has confidence in using it. In the near term, he said, the district plans to proceed with test wells at accessible sites and adjust designs based on what is actually found underground.

Director Bill Gere raised legal and practical concerns, particularly if wells are drilled near the Cosumnes River. He questioned whether state regulators would approve such wells and said that the issue must be clarified in advance. Gere also warned that many promising sites are on private land and said the district must secure ironclad agreements ensuring access, ownership and control of any wells and water produced.

Gere also floated a simpler approach. He suggested that the landowner with hundreds of lots at stake could fund and drill a well, have an independent geologist confirm the yield, and, if sufficient water is found, the district could proceed with development permits.

“Just write a check; drill a well. If there’s water there, we’ll give you your permit,” Gere said.

Pearson immediately pushed back, saying the process is far more complex than that.

Merchant also rejected the idea, noting that the district faces multiple shortages – for existing residents, approved projects and future buildout – and must determine who gets water first.

Given the amount of money involved, land ownership and easement issues, he said the issue cannot be reduced to a “drill a well and build” approach. Instead, these issues require legal guidance and professional engineering.

By the end of the discussion, there appeared to be broad agreement that the 3,000 acre-feet figure cited in recent documents is not yet defensible and must be re-examined by qualified professionals.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to clarify that Tom Shewchuk serves as a community representative on the ad hoc committee, not as a representative of the Rancho Murieta Country Club.