Skip to content
Freshwater Society at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Freshwater Society

Inspiring and empowering people to value and preserve our freshwater resources.

$141k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Community Improvement$453kEnvironment$242kEducation$136k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $110,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $140,735 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,735 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.
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$4.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BLACK SWAMP CONSERVANCY$30,000
LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC$20,000
MINNESOTA LAND TRUST$20,000
LITTLE FORKS CONSERVANCY$20,000
SAIGNAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY$20,000
02The need
03

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 (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%Marine Area Community School: $28k → 6%Carleton College: $33k → 11%Bolin-Zweig: $387k → 11%Minnesota Land Trust I: $20k → 14%SAIGNAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY: $20k → 14%LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $20k → 11%Water 365: $24k → 17%Carleton College: $24k → 11%Bolin-Zweig: $66k → 11%MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $20k → 14%Saginaw Basin Land Trust: $20k → 14%Landmark Conservancy Inc: $20k → 11%Water 365: $8k → 17%Minnesota Land Trust I: $10k → 14%Saginaw Basin Land Trust: $10k → 14%Landmark Conservancy Inc: $10k → 11%Hamline University: $11k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$810k · 8 repeat orgs$21k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
2

Total granted

$810k
$21k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+35%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CC
    CARLETON COLLEGE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $57k · revenue +6%
  • BS
    BLACK SWAMP CONSERVANCY
    3× · 2023–2025 · $50k · revenue +11%
  • ML
    MINNESOTA LAND TRUST
    3× · 2023–2025 · $50k · revenue +36%

Funded once

  • TO
    TRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
    one grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue +9%
  • SB
    SAGINAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCYgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +35%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc

The mission of the lake champlain land trust is to save the scenic beauty, natural communities, and recreational amenities of lake champlain by permanently preserving significant islands, shoreline areas, and natural communities in the…

Environment
3
Legacy Land Conservancy

Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever

Environment
4
Leelanau Conservancy

To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

Environment
5
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
6
The Land Trust for Tennessee Inc

To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.

Environment
7
Conservation Legacy

Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…

Youth Development
8
Lyme Land Conservation Trust Inc

Conservation of lyme's natural, scenic and historic land & water resources.

Environment
9
Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy

To conserve natural land and open space - including forests, wetlands, meadows, agricultural lands, and places of scenic beauty - to provide habitat for wildlife and to enrich the lives of people.

Environment
10
Land Trust Accreditation Commission

The mission of the land trust accreditation commission is to inspire excellence, promote public trust and ensure permanence in the conservation of open lands by recognizing land trust organizations that meet rigorous quality standards and…

Environment
11
Six Rivers Land Conservancy Fka Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy

To conserve, sustain, and connect natural areas, land, and waters that make the places we live special

Environment
12
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Landmark Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 10 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Bolin-Zweig: $453,448 · OtherBolin-ZweigWater 365: $31,574 · OtherWater 365BLACK SWAMP CONSERVANCY: $50,000 · EnvironmentBLACK SWAMP CONSERVANCYLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $50,000 · EnvironmentLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INCThe Little Forks Conservancy Inc: $50,000 · EnvironmentThe Little Forks Conservancy…MINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $50,000 · EnvironmentMINNESOTA LAND TRUSTSAGINAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY: $10,000 · EnvironmentMARINE AREA COMMUNITY SCHOOL: $68,200 · EducationMARINE AREA COMMUN…CARLETON COLLEGE: $57,164 · EducationCARLETON COLLEGETRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $10,727 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE HA…
Other$485,022Environment$210,000Education$136,091

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMARINE AREA COMMUNITY SCHOOL: $68,200 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetCARLETON COLLEGE: $57,164 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLACK SWAMP CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $50,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetThe Little Forks Conservancy Inc: $50,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetMINNESOTA LAND TRUST: $50,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $10,727 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAGINAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 1y, 2.0% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Land Trust Alliance I…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Land Trust Alliance IncDC15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Land Trust Alliance Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Freshwater Society?

    Find your warmest path to Freshwater Society 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 10 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Freshwater Society’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home