Muddy Valley Irrigation Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880061015
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Overton, NV, USA
Phone
7023987310
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,660,193
Expenses
$1,198,292
Assets
$3,821,415
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT MILLINGTON (GENERAL MANAGER): $129,910 total reported compensation
  • TODD ROBISON (DIRECTOR): $6,000 total reported compensation
  • STAN HARDY (DIRECTOR): $6,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mvic is a mutual ditch company that proveys water to its shareholders for farming and agriculture purposes. The company uses all funds assessed to maintain and manage the supply of water owned by its shareholders.

What it reported doing in 2025

The muddy valley irrigation company provides, maintains and manages a network of open ditch and pipeline to carry water shares owned by its shareholders to their respective property for farming and other irrigation purposes. The company maintains several miles of ditch and irrigation line, and assesses shareholders for the direct cost of maintaining these lines. Certain special assessments are made to accommodate the specific needs of certain shareholders from time to time as deemed necessary by the board of directors. The management and board of the mvic also manages and maintains watering schedules and flow times for each shareholder of the company.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.6%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.8%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.19; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.6% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $901K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.