RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - A long-delayed proposal for a third Rancho Murieta water storage tank took on new urgency Aug. 4 after district staff warned that the Rio Oso tank will need a complete rehabilitation within about 2½ years, potentially leaving the community without one of its primary storage tanks unless replacement storage or a temporary bypass system is in place.

The discussion took place during the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Improvements Committee meeting, where committee members, staff, developers and residents debated why progress on the third tank has slowed despite months of engineering work.

The third tank has become essential not only for future development but also for existing customers. River Canyon Properties says the district will not release water meters for approximately 130 lots in the second phase of its Residences subdivision until additional storage is available, while the district engineer has told the board that a third tank is needed to increase emergency water storage capacity for current residents.

Interim Director of Operations Travis Bohannon told the committee that a recent cathodic protection inspection found the Rio Oso tank has an estimated remaining service life of about 2½ years before it must undergo a complete rehabilitation.

“If we’re lucky, 2½ years,” Bohannon said. “Within the next three years, we’re going to have to do something with Rio Oso.”

Rehabilitating the Rio Oso tank would require removing it from service. Unless a third storage tank is constructed before then, the district would likely have to install a temporary bypass system to maintain water service during the work; the last time this occurred was in 2009.

The renewed focus on the third tank came as developers questioned why progress on the project has largely stalled.

Rancho Murieta Properties representative Jeff Pearson opened the discussion by asking why an update on the third water tank had been removed from the agenda after briefly appearing in a draft version. He said the district had already spent considerable time and money on engineering studies and asked for an update on the search for the tank.

Committee Chairman Bill Gere said the item was removed because it had been added after the Brown Act deadline for posting the agenda. He also said the district’s lack of a permanent general manager and director of operations has slowed progress on the third tank and other major infrastructure projects.

Gere said the district has already spent about $376,000 on district engineer Joe Domenichelli and another $300,000 on legal services over the past year, arguing that the committee first needs to determine what it wants to accomplish before authorizing additional engineering work.

“We need to figure out what it is that we actually want before we start spending the $300- to $400-an-hour consultant rates, Gere said.

Pearson rejected Gere’s contention that the district’s staffing shortage was responsible for the slow pace of the third tank project. 

“I want to remind everybody how we got to this lack of staff,” Pearson said. “This was a decision that was made by the board... This is a self-inflicted problem.”

Pearson said the board majority chose to operate for months without hiring a permanent general manager or director of operations and should not now cite those vacancies as the reason major projects have stalled.

The disagreement follows a contentious debate at the committee’s May 6 meeting. Before that meeting, district engineer Joe Domenichelli had identified Site 4 as the preferred location for the third storage tank. Gere instead advocated evaluating a site near the water treatment plant because the district already owned the property, potentially avoiding significant land acquisition costs. Developer Bob Keil accused Gere of reopening an issue the district’s engineer had already spent months evaluating.

Since then, the committee has not publicly discussed whether Gere and Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder have identified a new location or presented any engineering analysis to support one.

Keil said the continued delays have tangible consequences because the district has informed River Canyon Properties that no water meters will be issued for approximately 130 lots in the second phase of its Residences subdivision until a third storage tank is built.

“We have all of the information to size the tank, price the tank, build the tank, permit the tank and go forward,” Keil said.

Wilder said financing remains the biggest obstacle, noting the district could not commit to a project expected to cost about $6 million without first securing funding.

Jenco argued that was approaching the issue backward. 

“You’ve got the cart in front of the horse,” he said, contending that engineering and design should come first to determine the tank’s size, location and cost before financing can be addressed.

Gere disagreed, saying the district first needs to determine the tank’s size and location before spending additional money on engineering.

The committee took no action on the third tank. As a result, the district still faces decisions about where to build the facility, how to fund it and whether it can be completed before the district takes the Rio Oso tank out of service for rehabilitation.