Hatch Irrigation Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463933344
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Hatch, UT, USA
Phone
4356320331
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,029
Expenses
$70,374
Assets
$99,877
Liabilities
$35,179

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW L WALTER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL W HEAP (DIRECTOR)
  • BEN H WARNER (DIRECTOR)
  • KURT SAWYER (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To operate, maintain, repair, and replace when necessary the hatch irrigation company irrigation ditches and controlling structures and to provide irrigation water to the shareholders.

What it reported doing in 2025

To operate, maintain, repair, and replace, when necessary, the hatch irrigation company irrigation ditches and controlling structures and to provide irrigation water to the shareholders. This is done every year before water is put into the ditches, during the time water is in the ditches, and after water is turned out of the ditches. The work is sub- contracted to whoever is qualified to do the work that is needed, whether it is a shareholder or some other contractor.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -49.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.