Skip to content
Regional Water Management Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Regional Water Management Foundation

The primary objective and purpose of the rwmf is to (1) protect communities in santa cruz county from water shortages and floods; (2) protect and improve water quality and the natural environment in santa cruz county; and (3) protect and improve water supply reliability santa cruz county.

$2.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$838k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Community Improvement$3.4MEnvironment$2.7MPhilanthropy$2.2MPublic Benefit$164kFood & Nutrition$10kScience & Tech$6k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $1,554,017, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,318,603 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $764,586 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

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $289k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.3M
$427,341
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF WATSONVILLE$837,948
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (RCD)$427,341
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ$161,438
DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (SCC-DPW) DCSD$127,290
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $359k → 12%CASTROVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT: $62k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION FOR WATER: $209k → 12%AMAH MUTSUN LAND TRUST: $11k → 13%SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY: $390k → 14%RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION: $73k → 16%SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $217k → 12%CITY OF MONTEREY: $241k → 12%SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: $31k → 13%SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY: $177k → 14%NILSEN & ASSOCIATES: $73k → 16%SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $104k → 12%MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: $150k → 12%SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: $30k → 13%SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY: $170k → 14%RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION: $28k → 16%MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: $81k → 12%SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: $27k → 13%SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY: $166k → 14%RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION: $15k → 16%MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: $7k → 12%RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $483k → 13%RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY (RCD): $427k → 13%RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $110k → 13%RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $46k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $838k → 13%PAJARO SUNNY MESA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: $467k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $292k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $203k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $36k → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $501k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $29k → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $456k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $10k → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CRUZ: $423k → 13%COMMUNITY BRIDGES: $10k → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $411k → 13%CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $3k → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $376k → 13%DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT: $179k → 13%CITY OF SANTA CRUZ: $161k → 13%DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (SCC-DPW) DCSD: $127k → 13%DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT: $8k → 13%DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION: $5k → 13%RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION: $48k → 13%DAVENPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT: $5k → 13%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.

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.5M · 8 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +275% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
10

Total granted

$4.5M
$1.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+275%
+1%

Still filing today

13%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementFood & NutritionEnvironmentOther
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

  • CO
    CITY OF WATSONVILLE
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.4M
  • CO
    COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
    5× · 2019–2024 · $1.4M
  • SB
    SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPT
    3× · 2019–2021 · $513k

Funded once

  • PS
    PAJARO SUNNY MESA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
    one grant, 2020 · $467k
  • SB
    SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
    one grant, 2018 · $390k
  • SL
    SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
    one grant, 2018 · $359k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 19 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)
4/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF WATSONVILLE: $1,412,039 · OtherCITY OF WATSONVILLECOUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ: $1,374,341 · OtherCOUNTY OF SANTA CRUZSANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPT: $512,930 · OtherSANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPTPAJARO SUNNY MESA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: $466,501 · OtherPAJARO SUNNY MESA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTCOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: $447,214 · OtherCOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOCITY OF MONTEREY: $398,431 · OtherCITY OF MONTEREYSANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY: $389,734 · OtherSANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCYSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $358,910 · OtherSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION FOR WATER: $208,666 · Other+6 more: $527,342 · Other+6 moreCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $2,166,648 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CR…Rural Community Assistance Corporation: $164,415 · Community ImprovementAmah Mutsun Land Trust: $10,985 · EnvironmentCommunity Bridges: $10,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$6,096,108Philanthropy$2,166,648Community Improvement$164,415Environment$10,985Food & Nutrition$10,000

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 budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $2,166,648 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetRural Community Assistance Corporation: $164,415 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetAmah Mutsun Land Trust: $10,985 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCommunity Bridges: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION FOR WATER ↗
  • Who funds Rural Community Assistance Corporation ↗
  • Who funds Amah Mutsun Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds Community Bridges ↗

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.

Community Foundation …Silicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…
Community Foundation Santa Cruz CountyCA13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation Santa Cruz County · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust

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 Regional Water Management Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Regional Water Management Foundation. 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%15%30%45%60%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 · 0–60%
    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 Regional Water Management Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Regional Water Management Foundation 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 19 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 Regional Water Management’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