RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Improvements Committee spent nearly an hour on June 10 reviewing the future of the Water Vision Working Group and a newly created matrix intended to organize the district’s growing list of water-related projects and responsibilities.

The discussion was the committee’s first opportunity to review information requested by the board following a contentious May 27 debate over whether the Water Vision Working Group should continue operating as an independent working group or be folded into the Improvements Committee.

The Improvements Committee, chaired by Director Bill Gere, includes Director Randy Jenco, Interim Operations Manager Travis Bohannon, Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder and other district staff. The committee reviews infrastructure issues in depth before making recommendations to the full board.

The committee also received updates on several other matters, including discussions between former director Jim Farrell and consultant Lisa Maddaus regarding unresolved questions in the draft Integrated Water Master Plan, deteriorating culverts at the country club, and other infrastructure projects. Those topics will be covered in a separate story.

The Water Vision Working Group currently consists of Jenco, Bohannon, Rancho Murieta Properties Project Manager Jeff Pearson, Rancho Murieta Association General Manager Vicky Lentz and community representative Tom Shewchuk. Wilder regularly participates in meetings but is not formally a member.

The board originally created the group in late 2025 to work with Water Systems Consulting in identifying potential groundwater well sites for Rancho Murieta. Since then, directors have assigned the group additional responsibilities involving Lake Clementia, water-use auditing and Urban Water Management Plan development.

Progress Report on Water Vision Efforts

Shewchuk opened the discussion with a presentation reviewing the group’s progress on its assignments.

He estimated the group’s groundwater work is about 30% complete. Members have evaluated potential well sites and concluded that the most promising locations are not near existing district infrastructure, making transmission costs a significant factor in future development.

Shewchuk said the group continues to support a 2025 Dunn Engineering proposal to conduct geophysical testing to locate groundwater closer to district facilities. The board rejected that proposal on a 3-2 vote in April.

He said questions involving groundwater banking, the number of wells needed, funding sources and negotiations with landowners remain unresolved.

“We don’t have a well strategy yet,” Shewchuk said.

Shewchuk suggested the district may ultimately need about 1,500 acre-feet of annual groundwater production, although he emphasized that figure represents his personal opinion rather than a board-approved target.

Lake Clementia under Review

Shewchuk estimated the group’s work involving Lake Clementia is only about 10% complete.

He said members are exploring whether the lake could serve as an emergency drinking water source while preserving recreational uses but are waiting to talk to the district’s new water attorney.

According to Shewchuk, representatives from state water agencies indicated that if Rancho Murieta faced a severe drought emergency and needed to use Lake Clementia before all permits were in place, regulators would likely “look the other way.”

“They said, ‘Don’t quote me on it,’” Shewchuk told the committee. “So I’m not quoting anybody.”

Water Audit Challenges Assumptions

Another major assignment involves a districtwide water-use audit and preparation for a future Urban Water Management Plan.

Shewchuk said preliminary results show that older neighborhoods are the district’s heaviest water users while newer homes consume substantially less water.

“All the new homes are the light water users,” Shewchuk said, attributing the difference to low-flow fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping requirements and restrictions on turf.

He argued that future water planning shouldn’t assume new homes will consume water at the same rate as older neighborhoods.

“To say that they’re going to use as much water as the houses in the fairways that have these huge lawns is just wrong,” Shewchuk said.

Shewchuk said the audit has uncovered discrepancies involving connection counts, equivalent dwelling units and billing records that still need to be resolved. He suggested that the audit be completed before the district makes major decisions on future water storage needs, including the size of a proposed third water tank.

He also said resolving discrepancies in connection counts is important so the district will know when it has reached the 3,000-service-connection threshold that requires preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan.

Debate over Group’s Future Continues

The discussion eventually returned to the issue that sparked the May 27 board debate.

Gere reiterated his belief that the Water Vision Working Group should operate through the Improvements Committee rather than as a separate working group.

“I think that this should be done as a part of the Improvements Committee,” Gere said.

Supporters disagreed.

Jenco noted that the board created the group and subsequently assigned it responsibilities beyond groundwater well siting.

Shewchuk argued that all assignments remain unfinished, including groundwater planning, Lake Clementia evaluation, water-use auditing and Urban Water Management Plan preparation.

Pearson defended the group’s continued existence, arguing that it provides expertise the district otherwise might have to purchase from consultants and allows members to work between monthly committee meetings.

“Except for Travis, I know more about how the infrastructure works in this community than anybody,” Pearson said.

Shewchuk challenged the idea that the same work could be accomplished solely through monthly committee meetings.

“Do you want to do that in monthly committee meetings, or do you want to do that in a work group where you can actually meet and make progress?” he asked.

Gere reiterated his position that the work should be carried out through the Improvements Committee.

“I disagree,” Shewchuk replied.

During public comment, developer Bob Keil strongly opposed folding the group into the Improvements Committee. He argued that the Water Vision Working Group was created specifically because complex water issues could not be effectively addressed during monthly committee meetings and questioned why the district would disband a volunteer group that was making progress on its assignments.

No action was taken regarding the group’s future.

Matrix Intended to Organize Water Projects

Committee members also reviewed a draft matrix prepared by Interim Board Secretary Dyanne Fleet at Wilder’s direction.

The matrix was developed in response to a May 27 board directive seeking a clearer picture of the district’s numerous water-related projects and who is responsible for each task.

Fleet said the effort began after Gere suggested using artificial intelligence as a research tool. She combined AI-assisted research with reviews of board meeting transcripts, staff reports and other historical records.

Fleet said the initial effort produced roughly 30 pages of material, which she condensed into the five-page summary presented to the committee.

“It took me a week,” Fleet said.

Jenco said the matrix needs to be simplified before it becomes a practical management tool. He suggested members of the Water Vision Working Group review the draft because of their familiarity with many of the projects.

The committee agreed that the matrix would return to the Improvements Committee next month for further refinement before being presented to the board.