RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board voted 3-2 on Aug. 26 to dissolve the Water Vision Working Group following a brief review of a matrix developed to track the district’s water issues, projects and possible solutions.

The matrix was designed to pull together the numerous water-related matters facing the district and show their status and next steps. It was intended to provide a single place to track work that had previously been spread among reports, studies and district discussions.

The board made no changes to the matrix. It was left as it had come out of the Improvements Committee.

Director Randy Jenco said the committee had already reviewed the matrix at the board’s direction and brought it back. He suggested that unless directors had questions, they move to the following agenda item: whether the Water Vision Working Group itself should continue.

“I believe everybody has heard the discussion at the Improvements Committee and listened to the review of the matrix,” Jenco said. “So, unless there’s any questions, I’m not sure what’s to be reviewed.”

The Water Vision Working Group was structured to bring together different interests involved in Rancho Murieta’s water future. Its membership included Jenco representing the CSD board, Jeff Pearson of Rancho Murieta Properties representing the developers, the RMA general manager representing the homeowners association, and resident Tom Shewchuk representing the community. The staff members were Interim Operations Manager Travis Bohannon and Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder.

The board had assigned the group four areas of work: groundwater wells, Lake Clementia, preparation for an Urban Water Management Plan and a water audit. Shewchuk reminded directors that the board originally assigned three tasks and subsequently added the water audit at his request.

District counsel Patrick Enright recommended dissolving both the Water Vision Working Group and the Administrative Oversight Ad Hoc Committee and allowing the incoming general manager to determine what groups, if any, should be used in the future.

Enright said the district already has standing committees, and the temporary groups had served a purpose while the district was operating with an interim general manager and other interim or vacant positions. 

“I think they serve their purpose, but at this time we should start with a clean slate,” Enright said.

Jenco disagreed with dissolving the Water Vision Working Group. He said its work had barely begun because of obstacles it had encountered and suggested instead that the group be put on hold until a new general manager was hired. The new GM could then decide whether it should continue.

Director Linda Butler supported dissolution. She said the district plans to hire a water operations director whose professional responsibilities would encompass the work being performed by the group, including preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan and oversight of water, sewer and drainage. She said working groups had provided a bridge while the district lacked an operations director, but those responsibilities ultimately should reside with professional staff.

Director Tim Maybee argued strongly for keeping the Water Vision Working Group, saying it should be considered separately from the Administrative Oversight Ad Hoc Committee.

“The working committee has probably produced more than our standing committees have on a lot of the subjects here,” Maybee said.

As one example, he pointed to the Dunn geophysics proposal, saying the working group had brought the board a clearly outlined proposal that included a budget.

“I think the work is good,” Maybee said. “I think this committee should stay in place.”

He said that after the new general manager hires an operations professional, the working group could assist that person.

Director Bill Gere favored dissolving the group and raised concerns about its composition. He said that if a Water Vision group were reconstituted, it should have a more fair and balanced representation of the community, have an agenda and operate under the Brown Act.

That prompted a pointed exchange with Pearson, who challenged Gere’s earlier characterization of the working group as being made up of developers. Gere acknowledged making the statement and said he stood by it.

Pearson then asked, “Is Mr. Shewchuk a developer?”

“He owns a buildable lot,” Gere responded, drawing laughter from the audience.

Pearson defended both the composition and work of the group, saying it brought together people representing residents, the CSD board, RMA, development interests and the public.

“We’ve done a lot. We made a lot of progress,” Pearson said, adding that part of him viewed dissolving the group as snatching “defeat from the jaws of victory.”

He questioned the wisdom of eliminating an existing group in anticipation of hiring a water operations manager who was not yet on staff. A new manager, he said, would need time to learn the district’s complicated history and could benefit from the knowledge already assembled in the working group.

Shewchuk expressed a different kind of frustration. He reminded the board that it had chartered the working group to address wells, Lake Clementia and preparation for an Urban Water Management Plan and later agreed to add the water audit. 

“You chartered us with four tasks,” Shewchuk said.

But he said the group had been stalled for six months and, without a director of operations likely to be hired immediately, he saw little prospect of making progress in the next several months. 

“I actually hope you do shut us down,” Shewchuk said. “Please vote to shut us down.”

Merchant said the district’s approach to water planning needs to move to a higher level, beginning with an Urban Water Management Plan as the district approaches the 3,000-connection threshold. He said the plan would assess whether the district can provide enough water for existing customers through droughts and emergencies as well as anticipated development over the next 20 years, and it would have to demonstrate that proposed supplies have the financing and infrastructure needed to make them more than “paper water.”

He said the district should use work already completed through the Integrated Water Master Plan and Water Vision Working Group as it develops a comprehensive water plan under the direction of professional operations staff.

The board voted 3-2 to dissolve the Water Vision Working Group, with Butler, Gere and Merchant in favor and Jenco and Maybee opposed.

The board then separately voted unanimously to dissolve the Administrative Oversight Ad Hoc Committee, effective immediately.