RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A proposal to take the next step in identifying new groundwater sources for the Rancho Murieta Community Services District stalled on April 15, as Board President John Merchant drew a line over property rights, insisting the district should not spend money studying water on land it does not control.

The debate capped a two-meeting arc that began April 7 at the Improvements Committee, where consultants and developers outlined a path forward for locating new wells to augment the community’s water supply.

At the center of the dispute: whether the district should move ahead with a roughly $90,000 geophysical study – funded by developer-paid augmentation fees – before securing agreements with property owners where potential wells might be located.

The proposal by hydrogeologist Patrick Dunn and geophysicist Sage Wagner would use seismic and electrical resistivity testing to identify underground water-bearing zones.

Dunn said the work builds directly on a desktop analysis completed by Water Systems Consulting – approved in July 2025 for $80,700 and delivered Jan. 12, 2026 – which identified six to seven potential well sites, with about three considered viable.

Unlike that earlier effort, Dunn’s proposal would involve field-based testing – often described as “boots on the ground” – to more precisely locate water-bearing formations.

When the board approved the WSC study in 2025, there was no similar concern about identifying potential water sources on property the district does not own, so long as the sites were within district boundaries.

Using aerial data from the California Department of Water Resources, Dunn said the new study would focus on locating alluvial materials – water-bearing sands – over fractured bedrock, and prioritizing sites near existing infrastructure to reduce costs.

Wagner described the process as a noninvasive means of evaluating subsurface conditions. 

“This is a typical step one,” Dunn said. “It’s investigative. It tells you whether you want to pursue that property.”

“You don’t have a doctor perform surgery before doing X-rays,” he said. “We’re providing information from the ground surface without drilling a well.”

Those findings would then be “ground-truthed” through test holes and water-quality sampling before any production wells are installed.

Dunn outlined a phased approach: geophysical testing, then exploratory borings to about 300 feet, followed by water quality testing, all before committing to the far more expensive step of drilling production wells.

He said drilling costs have risen sharply – from about $125 per foot in earlier years to more than $500 per foot today – making it critical to identify the best locations before committing to full-scale wells.

The proposal traces back to the April 7 Improvements Committee meeting, where Jeff Pearson, project manager for Rancho Murieta Properties, said he brought Dunn back after reviewing the area’s water history and earlier studies.

“Every serious study” pointed back to Dunn, Pearson said, citing the hydrogeologist’s previous mapping, test drilling and identification of potential well sites more than a decade ago.

Pearson said Dunn had identified two promising well locations in 2012 and 2013, but the district never followed through on developing those sites.

He said the new proposal builds on the district’s recent WSC study and refines potential sites using more detailed field data and updated tools.

Pearson also noted that at least one potential site – near a retention pond by the hotel – is on district-owned land, and that Dunn incorporated a location previously identified by WSC in its proposal.

Committee members discussed costs of roughly $95,000 for the study and project management, along with broader questions about how and when to pursue new water sources.

Ownership Debate

At the April 15 board meeting, Merchant said the science behind the proposal was not the issue; ownership was.

“My concern is not in the process at all,” he said. “My concern is doing the process at a time when we have upfront understanding of where this project goes in terms of ownership and priority.”

Merchant warned that identifying significant groundwater on private land without agreements in place could put the district at a disadvantage. He said the district could be “putting ourselves in a very expensive position” if it identifies water on land it does not control.

Director Randy Jenco pushed back, calling the study a continuation of work already underway. 

“This is just an extension of what WSC already did,” he said, noting the study would refine earlier findings.

Jenco said the work would be funded through developer-paid augmentation fees, not by ratepayers.

District counsel Patrick Enright questioned Merchant’s approach. He said the district needs information first to determine which properties are worth pursuing before negotiating with landowners. Requiring ownership agreements in advance, he said, “is putting the cart before the horse.”

Enright added that the district has delayed similar efforts for years. 

“We’ve been through this for 10 years,” Enright said. “We need to move forward.”

Director Bill Gere expressed concern about costs and funding strategy, while Director Linda Butler questioned whether the study should proceed before key issues – including ownership and timing – are resolved.

Pearson and Dunn said the study would reduce financial risk by narrowing viable sites before costly drilling begins.

Dunn said he didn’t anticipate any issues obtaining a right of access from the owners, noting that the testing is temporary and nonintrusive.

The exchange highlighted a broader divide on the board over how aggressively to pursue new water supplies.

Jenco warned that delaying action could leave the district in the same position years from now. 

“Although I won’t be here, we’ll be having this same conversation 10 years from now,” he said.

Vote Reflects Split

The divide ultimately played out in a 3-2 vote, with Merchant, Butler and Director Bill Gere voting against moving forward, and Jenco and Director Tim Maybee voting in favor.

Later in the meeting, concerns raised by Merchant about groundwater ownership resurfaced under an agenda item to approve a resolution outlining agreements between the district and landowners for test wells.

Merchant had first introduced the resolution in March but withdrew it after sharp criticism from Jenco, Maybee and two members of the Water Vision subcommittee, who argued it could delay efforts to secure new water supplies.

He brought the item back to the Improvements Committee on April 7, where no action was taken, and again to the board on April 15.

Merchant ultimately withdrew the resolution a second time after Maybee proposed a compromise: set the measure aside and refer the groundwater ownership questions to the district’s new water attorney. Maybee said the attorney could develop an appropriate legal framework and draft agreements, potentially by July, allowing the board to proceed with the Dunn proposal.