Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462954392
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Bozeman, MT, USA
Phone
4065781935
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,174,474
Expenses
$645,365
Assets
$1,147,803
Liabilities
$7,527

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Guy Alsentzer (Executive Dir.): $164,224 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Upper Missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of Montana's upper Missouri river basin of Montana. To accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and decisionmakers, utilize water-quality monitoring and best-available science and, when necessary to protect waterways and communities, insist on compliance with the law. We believe healthy, clean waterways go hand-in-hand with strong communities and therefore focus both on stopping pollution and on sustainable, long-term solutions to issues threatening southwest and west-central Montana.

What it reported doing in 2024

During this calendar year the organization secured a landmark litigation win in the Horse Creek Hills case, which concerned the lawfulness of the DNRC and County government in allowing sprawl development reliant on multiple exempt from review groundwater wells without any analysis of offsite impacts. The February 2024 case order put a stop to the DNRC's practice of allowing multiple exempt wells for new subdivision development, and also affirmed the critical and independent role of local government in assessing offsite water resource impacts, including affirming the legal value of local citizen input and public participation. Relatedly, the organization's Save Wild Trout campaign performed river monitoring across 36 locations on 5 rivers, developing a first-of-its-kind baseline of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and nutrient loading water quality data to inform river conservation efforts. This data can directly inform ongoing State efforts to understand the causes of unprecedented 40-year low recruitment in wild trout populations in SW Montana. The organization also successfully held the state water pollution control agency accountable to perform mandatory public participation in the design and authorization of new sewage infrastructure projects, including winning a preliminary injunction halting the spraying of sewage nearby a generational ranch owned by Waterkeeper members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.7%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.1%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 40.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.7% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $547K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.