Skip to content

· Public charity

Evergreen Rural Water of Washington

To provide the best professional training, technical assistance, and advocacy for washington state drinking water & wastewater utilities.

$311k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$144k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $284,675, the rows itemized in this filing. The $311,281 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $26,606 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $134k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $144k
$13,780
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION$143,678
CITY OF SEQUIM$25,776
CITY OF BINGEN$22,331
CITY OF WOODLAND$14,610
BOISTFORT VALLEY WATER$13,780
NORTH BEACH WATER DISTRICT$13,780
LAKE CUSHMAN MAINTENANCE$11,165
CITY OF BUCKLEY$11,165
LANGLEY MUNICIPLE WATER SYSTEM$11,165
CITY OF CHEHALIS$10,335
LAKE CHELAN RECLAMATION DISTRICT$6,890
02The need
02

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION: $144k → 19%LANGLEY MUNICIPLE WATER SYSTEM: $11k → 7%CITY OF BUCKLEY: $11k → 9%LAKE CHELAN RECLAMATION DISTRICT: $7k → 9%CITY OF BINGEN: $22k → 10%LAKE CUSHMAN MAINTENANCE: $11k → 11%CITY OF CHEHALIS: $10k → 12%CITY OF SEQUIM: $26k → 12%CITY OF WOODLAND: $15k → 13%NORTH BEACH WATER DISTRICT: $14k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field
03the grantee network

2 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2018–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2018 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 2 of the 11 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION: $143,678 · OtherNATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATIONCITY OF SEQUIM: $25,776 · OtherCITY OF SEQUIMCITY OF BINGEN: $22,331 · OtherCITY OF BINGENCITY OF WOODLAND: $14,610 · OtherBOISTFORT VALLEY WATER: $13,780 · OtherNORTH BEACH WATER DISTRICT: $13,780 · OtherLAKE CUSHMAN MAINTENANCE: $11,165 · OtherCITY OF BUCKLEY: $11,165 · OtherLANGLEY MUNICIPLE WATER SYSTEM: $11,165 · OtherCity of Chehalis: $10,335 · Other+1 more: $6,890 · Other
Other$284,675

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION: $143,678 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBOISTFORT VALLEY WATER: $13,780 over 1y, 1.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds BOISTFORT VALLEY WATER ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Evergreen Rural Water of Washington funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Evergreen Rural Water of Washington. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • National Rural Water Association: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Evergreen Rural Water of Washington?

Find your warmest path to Evergreen Rural Water of Washington through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 11 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Evergreen Rural Water of Washington’s filings →

More from the funding graph