Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and developers clash over Rancho Murieta water numbers; board moves on UWMP planning
Summary
Public commenters and developer representatives disputed how much water the district needs and whether past studies were manipulated. The board endorsed pursuing an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) RFP/RFQ and test wells subject to legal review and landowner agreements.
Public comment at the Rancho Murieta CSD meeting focused intensely on the district’s water supply assumptions and planning documents.
Janice Eckers, a long‑time resident, told the board that prior integrated water master‑plan drafts omitted a critical system‑capacity number and that the district must produce a fact‑based urban water master plan to determine how many service connections the existing supply can safely support. "If the CSD has not been manipulating their studies to show more water is available for development than exists," she said, "then why is the critical system capacity number missing from every study completed since 1990?" (paraphrased for clarity). Her written comments were included in the board packet.
Jeff Pearson, a project manager for Rancho North, countered that no formally adopted engineering document supports the repeated assertion that the district needs an additional 3,000 acre‑feet, and he offered to provide alternative demand and supply calculations to staff.
In staff reports and the improvements discussion, Director of Operations Travis reported January production and reservoir levels (about 23,686,000 gallons produced in January, roughly 772.72 acre‑feet) and noted recent heavy rainfall that has increased reservoir storage. Travis and other staff updated the board on coordinated next steps: an RFP/RFQ to procure an urban water management plan (UWMP) consultant, further coordination with the county about two proposed test‑well locations (equestrian and county park property), and the need to secure landowner agreements and legal counsel for water‑law matters.
The board discussed timing: consultants statewide are busy producing UWMPs on a common June schedule, so staff suggested soliciting qualifications and scheduling work to match consultant availability; members also recommended waiting until the industry backlog eases if a later procurement would produce better bids. The water vision working group will continue to compile evidence and recommend test‑well sites; staff will pursue agreements and counsel on the legal path forward.
Next steps: staff to issue an RFQ/RFP for UWMP services, pursue test‑well agreements and consult with water‑law experts, and present cost and schedule options to the board.
