Judge denies Fernley’s objections, approves TCID repayment plan for canal lining

Robert Perea, The Fernley Reporter

Senior judge Robert Estes ruled last Friday that the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District followed all statutory requirements and ruled that TCID can proceed with its repayment contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the lining of a portion of the Truckee Canal through Fernley.

The BOR paid for the $35 million project to line a 3.1 mile section of the canal through Fernley, a section roughly parallel to Cottonwood Lane north of U.S. 95A, in the area where the canal breached in 2008, flooding about 600 homes and causing millions of dollars in damages.

The hearing was to consider TCID’s petition asking the court to rule the repayment contract valid as required by state law. TCID had originally filed the petition in 2022, but that hearing was canceled when the City of Fernley filed a motion to intervene in the case in an attempt to get the court to declare the contract invalid on grounds that the city and its residents were not properly represented in the election held by TCID in 2022 to affirm the contract. In that election, TCID water right holders voted 1,886-168 to affirm the contract. In the Truckee Division (Fernley) the vote was 29 Yes and 123 No, while in the Carson Division (Fallon) it was 1,857 Yes and 45 No.

To repay the contract, TCID will be assessing water rights holders within the irrigation district, and most Fernley property owners are also charged an annual district fee by TCID.

In Friday’s hearing, attorney David Rigdon, who represents the City of Fernley on water matters, along with several residents, tried to argue that amounted to taxation without representation.

Estes asked Rigdon if he has seen the exhibits. He affirmed the city of Fernley has reviewed the information but the public hasn’t. Rigdon said it was TCID’s responsibility to file pretrial disclosure on all information and witnesses they planned to call.

Rigdon said the city asserts the TCID election was improperly done and the results are invalid. He contends property owners in the Fernley area who have no water rights will still pay for the repairs.

“This is quintessentially is an example of taxation without representation,” Rigdon said. “This is the first repayment election of any irrigation district held in at least 70 years.”

Rigdon said he wondered if the election was improperly done. Estes jumped in and said the hearing was to address the validity or authority of TCID with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Speaker after speaker expressed their frustration and opposition to TCID’s plan to reline the canal and for property owners to pay more each month. Water was shut off to the canal for a year during the repairs, and many of the Fernley residents have reported to TCID that their wells have gone dry. Many homeowners had to drill new wells or deepen existing ones.

“The decision by TCID and the federal government is strong-arm tactics to Fernley residents,” said Richard Pellett, a resident in the Desert Lakes subdivision east of Fernley.

Another speaker said he was offended TCID assessed his property to pay for the lining of the Truckee Canal. Another speaker blamed TCID for not doing a “better job in keeping the canals in better shape.” Homeowner Jon Ringard added Fernley water users will be saddled with the costs.

Lyon County Commissioner Scott Keller, who represents District 2, said he was unhappy how the voting was handled.

“Most people vote in Churchill County, not Fernley. The contract is not fair,” he said.

County Manager Andrew Haskin said he supports the city of Fernley. He said many Fernley residents, however, will deal with additional fees, and many can’t afford it.

“It’s upsetting we’re being told this,” he said.

Fernley Councilwoman Felicity Zoberski echoed many of the concerns expressed to the judge.

“The amount of people affected is more in Fernley than Fallon,” Zoberski said, emphasizing she’s watching more Fernley residents struggle with the water issues.

After the speakers aired their grievances, Ben Shawcroft, TCID’s general counsel and general manager, disputed many of Rigdon’s claims during the hearing and outlined how the process worked. He said TCID followed the law that’s written.

“We litigated other issues leading up to the hearing,” Shawcroft said.

If the residents don’t like the laws TCID must follow, Shawcroft said Fernley residents need to talk to their legislators to have those specific laws changed.

Rigdon though, said the city of Fernley has no say and emphasized thousands of people are disenfranchised by the ballots.

“We haven’t heard anything to change our argument,” Shawcroft replied.

Both TCID water users and non-water-righted residents objected to the repayment, citing their belief that the project provides no direct benefit.

Shawcroft told Rigdon and Fernley residents that they are receiving a benefit – the benefit of Fernley not flooding. He also addressed the assertion by some residents that entering the contract constitutes fraud, telling Estes this issue was already litigated and dismissed.

Estes then addressed the contract. He said TCID performs the maintenance under the BOR’s authority, which was approved in 1902, and carried out according to federal statute.

“The court finds TCID did what they were told to do,” Estes said.