Chris Bierwagen, President of the Nevada Irrigation District Board, recently told this community that nothing matters more than reliability. That when you turn the headgate or faucet, the water needs to be there.

No one disagrees with that.

But his op-ed leaves out the most important part of this conversation: how these new rates are actually being justified.

Because when you compare his public message to NID’s own internal documents, the story changes.

In his op-ed, Bierwagen claims the proposed rate increases are not about profit or unnecessary spending, but about critical infrastructure and reliability.

But in NID’s “Plan for Water” Staff Report (Strategic Alternatives section), the District states: “Rates will need to be increased to offset revenue reductions in dry years.”That’s not about reliability. That’s about revenue.

The same report repeatedly references “reduction in revenue” and a “substantial increase in rates to pay for project[s].” Internally, the focus is on maintaining financial stability. Publicly, the focus is on reliability. Those are not the same thing.

Bierwagen points to full reservoirs and steady deliveries, even in a low snowpack year, as proof that the system works. And he’s right. Water is flowing. Deliveries are on schedule.

Which raises a simple question: If the system is working today, why are ratepayers being asked to absorb massive cost increases without a clear explanation of how those costs are tied to them?

No one is arguing that infrastructure projects like the Scotts Flat spillway, the South Yuba Canal, or treatment plant upgrades don’t matter. They do.

But that’s not the legal standard.

Under Proposition 218, water rates must be proportional to the cost of service for each customer. They cannot be based on general system needs, and they cannot be used to stabilize revenue. That’s the law.

Yet this proposal asks the public to fund systemwide projects without clearly showing how those costs are distributed at the customer level.

Think about your own situation. Did you pay out of pocket to bring water to your property? Did you help build or extend the system on your street? Do you use more water than your neighbors?

If you answered yes to any of these, then you are not the same as everyone else. So why are you being charged like you are?

That is exactly what Proposition 218 was designed to prevent.

Bierwagen also emphasizes that these projects are required by regulators, suggesting there is no alternative. But required projects do not give the District a pass on how they recover costs. They still have to follow the law, show proportionality, and justify how each ratepayer is being charged. That burden has not been clearly met.

Then there’s the way this message is being delivered.

The op-ed is signed as a “local farmer and NID customer.” That’s meant to build trust. It signals shared experience and shared sacrifice. But that framing leaves out something critical.

This is not just a local farmer speaking. This is the President of the Board — one of the people responsible for setting the very rates being proposed.

That distinction matters.

Because this isn’t just an opinion. It’s advocacy from leadership.

And when leadership speaks, the community deserves the full picture, not a simplified narrative.

No one in this community is asking for unsafe infrastructure or unreliable water. That’s a false choice.

The real question is whether these rate increases are being designed in a way that is fair, transparent, and compliant with Proposition 218.

Right now, there are too many gaps. Internal documents point to revenue concerns. Public messaging focuses on reliability. Rate impacts are not clearly tied to individual cost of service.

Until those gaps are addressed, this isn’t just about water.

It’s about fairness.

And this community deserves more than a one-sided story. If you disagree with the proposed rate increases, take the time to submit both required forms. Failing to do so may limit or waive your ability to formally challenge the rates. Proposition 218 WRITTEN OBJECTION FORM
Proposition 218 Protest to Proposed Water Rates

Jason Kolb
Grass Valley, CA
NID customer
Reading the fine print