Skip to content
Waterkeeper Alliance Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Waterkeeper Alliance Inc

To protect our right to clean water in communities around the world.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$42k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Environment$3.6MYouth Development$38kPhilanthropy$5k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $172,441, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,076,610 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $904,169 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.
$15,139
Median grant
5
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RIVERKEEPER$42,000
BUFFALO NIAGARA WATERKEEPER$34,000
BAYKEEPER$24,000
CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH$15,139
LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER$15,000
MIAMI WATERKEEPER$15,000
GOOD STEWARDS OF ROCKINGHAM - DAN RIVERKEEPER$13,975
PATUXENT RIVERKEEPER$13,327
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BAYKEEPER: $30k → 10%RIVERKEEPER: $96k → 9%BUFFALO NIAGARA WATERKEEPER: $34k → 13%WINYAH RIVERS ALLIANCE: $56k → 13%CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER: $33k → 10%CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH: $74k → 12%COASTAL CAROLINA RIVERWATCH: $38k → 12%MOUNTAINTRUE: $39k → 12%COASTAL CAROLINA RIVERWATCH: $25k → 14%YADKIN RIVERKEEPER: $36k → 15%SOUND RIVERS: $136k → 18%COALITION FOR SUSITNA DAM ALTERNATIVES: $50k → 10%COOK INLETKEEPER: $75k → 11%THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA: $25k → 8%SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER: $25k → 10%LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER: $37k → 14%RIVERKEEPER: $75k → 9%BUFFALO NIAGARA WATERKEEPER: $24k → 13%WINYAH RIVERS FOUNDATION: $51k → 13%CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $29k → 10%CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH: $69k → 12%MOUNTAINTRUE: $38k → 12%SOUND RIVERS: $94k → 18%CAPTAIN PLANET FOUNDATION: $38k → 13%BAYKEEPER: $24k → 10%RIVERKEEPER: $70k → 9%BUFFALO NIAGARA RIVERKEEPER: $24k → 13%WINYAH RIVERS ALLIANCE: $49k → 13%CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $25k → 10%CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH: $64k → 12%YADKIN RIVERKEEPER: $35k → 12%SOUND RIVERS: $91k → 18%RIVERKEEPER: $42k → 9%WINYAH RIVERS ALLIANCE: $43k → 13%MIAMI WATERKEEPER: $25k → 15%CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $24k → 10%CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH: $57k → 12%MOUNTAINTRUE: $31k → 12%SOUND RIVERS: $85k → 18%RIVERKEEPER INC: $42k → 9%MIAMI WATERKEEPER: $25k → 15%CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH: $55k → 12%YADKIN RIVERKEEPER: $30k → 12%SOUND RIVERS: $79k → 18%RIVERKEEPER: $30k → 9%MOUNTAINTRUE: $28k → 12%RIVERKEEPER INC: $30k → 9%MOUNTAINTRUE: $24k → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
WA
MT
MI
NY
MA
OR
OH
PA
RI
CA
CO
VA
MD
NC
SC
DC
HI
AL
GA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $894k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Central America and the Caribbean$795k · 89% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

Latin America$49k · 6% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

Sub-Saharan Africa$43k · 5% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

East Asia and the Pacific$6k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 23 repeat orgs$439k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +44% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
21

Total granted

$3.2M
$439k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+44%

Still filing today

96%
90%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationAnimalsOther
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

  • SOUND RIVERS INC
    6× · 2018–2023 · $492k · revenue +66%
  • RI
    RIVERKEEPER INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $390k · revenue +34%
  • M
    MountainTrue
    7× · 2018–2024 · $181k · revenue +192%

Funded once

  • OW
    OAHU WATERKEEPER
    one grant, 2018 · $83k · revenue -72% · 66% of their budget
  • CI
    COOK INLETKEEPER
    one grant, 2024 · $75k · revenue 0%
  • CF
    Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue 0%
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
WaterWatch of Oregon

WaterWatch is a water conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring streamflows in Oregon rivers for fish, wildlife and the people who depend on healthy rivers.

—
2
Snake River Waterkeeper Inc

Snake River Waterkeeper exists for the purpose of applying science and law to protect, restore, and sustain waters of the Snake River Basin, and to support clean water access and advocacy in underserved communities worldwide.

Environment
3
Waterkeeper Alliance Inc

To protect our right to clean water in communities around the world.

Environment
4
Willamette Riverkeeper

Willamette riverkeeper's guiding principle is: "we believe a river with excellent water quality, abundant natural habitat, safe for fishing and recreation is a basic public right." for 27 years, willamette riverkeeper (wrk) has acted as…

Environment
5
Northwest Environmental Advocates

Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.

Environment
6
Hackensack Riverkeeper Inc

The mission of hackensack riverkeeper is to protect, preserve, and restore the hackensack river watershed and its living resources. hackensack riverkeeper fights for clean water, open space preservation, and public access to the river for…

Environment
7
Milwaukee Riverkeeper Inc

Our mission is to protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the river corridors and to advocate for sound land use in the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds.

Environment
8
Shorerivers Inc

Shorerivers protects and restores eastern shore waterways through science-based advocacy, restoration and education.

Environment
9
Charles River Watershed Association Inc

The organization's mission is to protect, restore, and enhance the charles river and its watershed through science, advocacy, and the law. the organization develops science-based strategies to increase resilience, protect public health,…

Environment
10
California Sportfishing Protection Allia
Environment
11
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
12
Tippecanoe Environmental Lake & Watershed Foundation

We work to protect and improve water quality in the lakes and streams of the upper tippecanoe river watershed. we do this by implementing solutions to stop pollution, engaging youth & adults and uniting partners.

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper Inc; the most unlike its peers is Save the Poudre Poudre Waterkeeper. 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

43 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. 43 of the 45 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
22
Early backer (in before they grew)
42/43
Grantees still filing
32/43
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUND RIVERS INC: $492,038 · EnvironmentSOUND RIVERS INCRIVERKEEPER INC: $390,288 · EnvironmentRIVERKEEPER INCCape Fear River Watch: $341,214 · EnvironmentCape Fear River WatchWinyah Rivers Foundation Inc: $266,161 · EnvironmentWinyah Rivers Foundation IncMountainTrue: $180,884 · EnvironmentMountainTrueCATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $149,426 · EnvironmentBaykeeper: $140,750 · EnvironmentHAW RIVER ASSEMBLY INC: $135,268 · EnvironmentLOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER: $103,275 · EnvironmentBUFFALO NIAGARA WATERKEEPER INC: $102,000 · Environment+26 more: $700,541 · Environment+26 moreWHITE OAK-NEW RIVERKEEPER ALLIANCE: $163,516 · OtherWHITE OAK-…OAHU WATERKEEPER: $83,066 · OtherOAHU WATER…Captain Planet Foundation Inc: $37,500 · OtherCaptain Pl…SUNCOAST WATERKEEPER INC: $25,000 · OtherSUNCOAST W…+1 more: $9,000 · OtherYADKIN RIVERKEEPER INC: $167,787 · EducationUpper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc: $6,500 · EducationCoastal Carolina Riverwatch Inc: $97,326 · AnimalsCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Environment$3,001,845Other$318,082Education$174,287Animals$97,326Philanthropy$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUND RIVERS INC: $492,038 over 6y, 17% of budgetRIVERKEEPER INC: $390,288 over 8y, 2.3% of budgetCape Fear River Watch: $341,214 over 7y, 13% of budgetWinyah Rivers Foundation Inc: $266,161 over 7y, 21% of budgetMountainTrue: $180,884 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetYADKIN RIVERKEEPER INC: $167,787 over 7y, 12% of budgetCATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $149,426 over 7y, 7.3% of budgetBaykeeper: $140,750 over 7y, 1.6% of budgetHAW RIVER ASSEMBLY INC: $135,268 over 5y, 20% of budgetLOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER: $103,275 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetBUFFALO NIAGARA WATERKEEPER INC: $102,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetCoastal Carolina Riverwatch Inc: $97,326 over 5y, 10% of budgetBISCAYNE BAY WATERKEEPER INC: $94,658 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetEARTHREPORTS INC: $85,595 over 7y, 11% of budgetOAHU WATERKEEPER: $83,066 over 1y, 66% of budgetCOOK INLETKEEPER: $75,000 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetGOOD STEWARDS OF ROCKINGHAM: $51,367 over 4y, 13% of budgetCoalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives: $50,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetPotomac Riverkeeper Network: $49,750 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetCaptain Planet Foundation Inc: $37,500 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetLAKE ERIE WATERKEEPER INC: $31,500 over 2y, 27% of budgetSPOKANE RIVERKEEPER: $29,450 over 2y, 10% of budgetWATERKEEPERS CHESAPEAKE INC: $26,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetSUNCOAST WATERKEEPER INC: $25,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetTHE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER: $18,246 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetGRAND TRAVERSE BAY WATERSHED INITIATIVE INC: $18,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCHARLESTON WATERKEEPER: $15,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetMIDDLE SUSQUEHANNA RIVERKEEPER ASSOCIATION INC: $14,000 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetOrange County Coastkeeper: $13,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBAYOU CITY WATERKEEPER INC: $11,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetSatilla Riverwatch Alliance Inc: $10,400 over 1y, 10% of budgetPUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE: $10,275 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHREE RIVERS WATERKEEPER: $10,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetJAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSAVE THE POUDRE POUDRE WATERKEEPER: $10,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetCHATTAHOOCHEE RIVERKEEPER INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetKLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER: $8,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetUpper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc: $6,500 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

PatagoniaorgZ Smith Reynolds Foun…Sound Rivers IncThe Waterwheel Founda…The Keith Campbell Fo…Leonardo Dicaprio Fou…River NetworkThe Rose Foundation f…National Fish and Wil…Clif Family FoundationFoundation for Pennsy…Resources Legacy Fund
PatagoniaorgCA47.7× affinity23 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Z Smith Reynolds Foundation Inc · Sound Rivers Inc · The Waterwheel Foundation · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation · River Network · The Rose Foundation for Communities the Environment · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds · Resources Legacy Fund

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 Waterkeeper Alliance Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 50%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Buzzards Bay Coalition: 37% of income from government
  • Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper Inc: 19% of income from government
  • Tualatin Riverkeepers Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
17report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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.

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 45 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 Waterkeeper Alliance’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