Central Texas Regional Water Supply Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472882787
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Antonio, TX, United States
Phone
(210) 760-1342
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,003,013
Expenses
$34,294,700
Assets
$729,658,246
Liabilities
$776,603,386

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER POWERS (PRESIDENT (TERM END 11/04/25))
  • TYLER JOHN SCHROEDER (INTERIM PRESIDENT (11/04/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER POWERS (PRESIDENT (TERM END 11/04/25)): $5,000 total reported compensation
  • TYLER JOHN SCHROEDER (INTERIM PRESIDENT (11/04/25)): $5,000 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA CEDILLO (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $5,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Securing a long-term, reliable supply of wholesale drinking water while keeping the cost of water as low as possible for as long as possible.

What it reported doing in 2025

The central Texas regional water supply corporation (ctrwsc) is a Texas non-profit water supply corporation formed under chapters 67 and 49 of the Texas water code. The purpose of ctrwsc is to operate a regional wholesale water transmission system to transport water approximately 143 miles from burleson and milam counties to the san antonio water system ("saws"), a municipal utility owned by the city of san antonio. Ctrwsc, vista ridge llc, and other corporate entities work together to form the vista ridge team which pursuant to several inter-party agreements, operates the water supply system that produces and transports the groundwater pumped from water wells in burleson and milam counties and delivers it to saws aqua vista station in northern bexar county for use throughout saws's service area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.8%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 41.6%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.28; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.06; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 19.8% of revenue deployed · 41.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $15.1M reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.