Skip to the page content
Your donations
Passes our checks

Environmental Defense Center

EIN 77-0061994 · Santa Barbara, CA

Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.

LegitimacyPassesRegistration and standingFinancial healthGood85 out of 100GovernanceStrong100 out of 100Impact evidenceDescribes programsHow well its results are evidenced

What it says it does

THE ORGANIZATION PROTECTS AND ENHANCES THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT THROUGH EDUCATION, ADVOCACY AND LEGAL ACTION.

Income
$3.7 million
Spending
$2.0 million
Spent on programs
73%
Reserves
66.7 months of spending
Largest source of income
donations and private grants, 55%
Employees
15
Volunteers
203
Highest pay
$238,890, chief counsel

Source: Form 990 for the year ending March 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Financial health

Good: 85 out of 100. Higher than 65% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).

  • Reserves

    35 of 35

    Spendable reserves would cover 66.7 months of spending.

  • Debt

    20 of 20

    It owes 1% of what it owns.

  • Living within its means

    15 of 15

    Income exceeded spending by 45% of income.

  • Income trend

    0 of 15

    Income fell 49% on the year before.

  • Spending floor

    15 of 15

    73% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 14 cents.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending March 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Governance

Strong: 100 out of 100. Higher than 57% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).

  • Independent board

    25 of 25

    15 of 15 voting board members are independent.

  • Conflict of interest policy

    15 of 15

    Has a written conflict of interest policy.

  • Whistleblower policy

    8 of 8

    Has a written whistleblower policy.

  • Record keeping policy

    7 of 7

    Has a written policy on keeping and destroying records.

  • Board minutes

    5 of 5

    Keeps minutes of board meetings.

  • Board sees the tax return

    10 of 10

    Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.

  • Pay set independently

    5 of 5

    Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.

  • Independent check of accounts

    15 of 15

    Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.

  • No reported misuse

    10 of 10

    Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending March 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Impact evidence

Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.

Programs described in its return (4)
  1. $374,002 spent. OCEAN (ISSUES REGARDING POLLUTION TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK; NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES, OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT; WIND DEVELOPMENT, MARINE SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS, MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AQUACULTURE, ACCESS AND RECREATION FOR ALL CONSISTENT WITH OCEAN CONSERVATION): ADVOCATED FOR PETITIONS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED MARINE PROTECTED AREAS BEFORE THE CA FISH AND GAME COMISSION AND MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE; WORKED TO REDUCE IMPACTS OF SHIP STRIKES THROUGH VESSEL SPEED REDUCTIONS; SUPPORTED DESIGNATION OF THE CHUMASH HERITAGE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY; SOUGHT THOROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGARDING THE IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE WIND AND PARTICIPATED IN CA ENERGY COMISSION OFFSHORE WIND STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS; HELPED ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE ARE ADDRESSED, INCLUDING REGARDING A PROPOSAL FOR AQUACULTURE OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND OCEAN RAINFOREST PROJECT; ADVOCATED BEFORE STATE LANDS COMMISSION RE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CHEVRON TOXIC DEBRIS MOUNDS; SUPPORTED AB 3162 (PROHIBITION ON OCTOPUS FARMING) AND ACR 210 (SUPPORTING STRENGTHENING AND ENHANCING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS).
  2. $299,202 spent. LAND AND WATER (ISSUES REGARDING LAND, WILDLIFE, RIVERS, CREEKS, AND WATERSHEDS OF THE CENTRAL COAST, VULNERABLE AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND ECOSYSTEMS, ACCESS AND RECREATION FOR ALL, COMPATIBLE WITH RESOURCE CONSERVATION): MONITORED PROCESS IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF SOLVANG'S APPLICATION TO DRILL NEW WELLS THAT THREATEN ENDANGERED STEELHEAD IN THE SANTA YNEZ RIVER; LITIGATED CHALLENGE TO U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S APPROVAL OF LOGGING PROJECT AT REYES PEAK IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST ON APPEAL; SECURED IMPROVED FLOW REGIME IN SANTA MARIA RIVER BELOW TWITCHELL DAM TO IMPROVE WILDLIFE HABITAT PENDING COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND COMMENTED ON RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT; ADVOCATED FOR STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DENIAL OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FISH PASSAGE STUDY REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF BRADBURY DAM ON LAKE CACHUMA; SUPPORTED CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION LISTING OF STEELHEAD AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; CONTINUED EFFORTS TO PRESERVE NAPLES INCLUDING ADVOCACY BEFORE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AND RESTORATION PLANS; LED CREEK SURVEYS AND CLEANUPS; OPPOSED SABLE OFFSHORE CORPORATION'S PROPOSAL TO RESTART DAMAGED PIPELINE SYSTEM INCLUDING INVESTIGATION AND WORK TO ENFORCE LAWS REGARDING ILLEGAL REPAIRS THAT IMPACTED COASTAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS; MONITORED AND ADVOCATED FOR STRONG POLICIES TO PROTECT SENSITIVE HABITATS AS PART OF THE CITY OF GOLETA'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
  3. $598,404 spent. CLIMATE AND ENERGY (ISSUES REGARDING OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE, CLEAN ENERGY): OPPOSED SABLE OFFSHORE CORPORATION'S PROPOSAL TO RESTART DAMAGED PIPELINE SYSTEM AND SANTA YNEZ UNIT PLATFORMS OFF GAVIOTA COAST AND ENSURE ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING ADVOCACY FOR COUNTY BOARD DENIAL OF THE TRANSFER OF PERMITS FROM EXXON TO SABLE, ADVOCACY BEFORE VARIOUS AGENCIES REGARDING PIPELINE RESTART APPROVAL PROCESSESS AND ENFORCEMENT, AND LITIGATION UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REGARDING RELEASE OF SABLE'S PIPELINE OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN; MONITORED APPLICATION OF GENERAL CONSERVATION PLAN FOR OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY; SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO CALGEM TO SUPPORT PROPOSED PHASE-OUT OF WELL STIMULATION TREATMENTS; SUPPORTED SB 1304 (AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF SAFE DRINKING WATER), AB 1866 (REQUIRING THE OIL INDUSTRY TO PLUG AND ABANDON IDLE WELLS), AB 3233 (REINSTATING LOCAL CONTROL OVER OIL AND GAS LAND USE DECISIONS) AND SB 867 (THE CLIMATE BOND); SOUGHT THOROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGARDING THE IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE WIND AND PARTICIPATED IN CA ENERGY COMMISSION OFFSHORE WIND STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS; ADVOCATED BEFORE STATE LANDS COMMISSION RE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CHEVRON TOXIC DEBRIS MOUNDS.
  4. $224,400 spent. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (ISSUES REGARDING WATER QUALITY, PROTECTING DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS): SUPPORTED SB 1304 (AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF SAFE DRINKING WATER), AB 1866 (REQUIRING THE OIL INDUSTRY TO PLUG AND ABANDON IDLE WELLS), AB 3233 (REINSTATING LOCAL CONTROL OVER OIL AND GAS LAND USE DECISIONS); SB 867 (THE CLIMATE BOND); AND AB 1864 (IMPROVING NOTICE RE PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS); MONITORED STORMWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM IN VENTURA COUNTY TO ENSURE REGULATION OF POTENTIALLY HARMFUL SOURCES OF POLLUTION; LITIGATED CHALLENGE TO U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S APPROVAL OF LOGGING PROJECT AT REYES PEAK IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST ON APPEAL CONCERNING IMPACTS TO TRIBAL RESOURCES; OPPOSED SABLE OFFSHORE CORPORATION'S PROPOSAL TO RESTART DAMAGED PIPELINE SYSTEM AND SANTA YNEZ UNIT PLATFORMS OFF GAVIOTA COAST AND ENSURE ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS; SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO CALGEM TO SUPPORT PROPOSED PHASE-OUT OF WELL STIMULATION TREATMENTS.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending March 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Legitimacy checks

  1. Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.

    Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.

  2. Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Passed.

    Not on the IRS automatic revocation list.

    Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 30, 2026.

  3. Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.

    On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.

    Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 10, 2026.

  4. Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.

    Most recent return on file covers the year ending March 2025.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.

  5. How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.

    Recognized by the IRS since January 1986.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.

  6. Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.

    Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.

    Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated October 7, 2026.

  7. Could it be confused with another charity? Worth knowing.

    A much larger organization has a similar name: Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated (New York, NY), EIN 11-6107128. If that is the one you meant, check the EIN before giving.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.

Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.