Calculate Your Impact
Move the slider to see what your contribution delivers in clean water, disease prevention, and lives saved. Numbers are based on cost-effectiveness data — methodology in the Technoeconomic Analysis section below.
Gallons of Clean Water
3,650
People Served / Year
10
Diseases Prevented
7
Lives Saved
0.04
What Each Tier Delivers
Ultrafiltration-treated drinking water at a rural Cambodian school — covers three children for the full 5+ year life of the system.
A complete gravity membrane filter delivered to a family in DR Congo — the $50 filter plus buckets, parts, shipping, and our partner PALPER’s build and training.
A turnkey rainwater + ultrafiltration system serving 200+ students at a rural Cambodian school — installed and maintained by our local partners.
Why Clean Water Is the Highest-Leverage Giving on Earth
Clean water is the most cost-effective intervention in global health, period. Below is how it stacks up against other categories of philanthropic giving — and why the math works the way it does.
Every $1 invested in clean drinking water yields between $4 and $28 in averted healthcare costs and increased productivity (WHO/UNICEF, GBD analyses).
Return on Each $1 of Philanthropic Investment
Sources: WHO/UNICEF, Copenhagen Consensus, GiveWell. Clean water's wide range reflects intervention diversity — chlorination yields multiples that ultrafiltration installations cannot.
Why the Math Works This Way
- Clean water compounds for decades. A single $80 gravity membrane filter, delivered, protects a family of five for a decade or more. The benefits — averted illness, productive school days, reduced healthcare spending — accrue every day for the lifetime of the system.
- Disease prevention dominates disease treatment. Treating cholera, typhoid, or rotavirus in a clinic costs orders of magnitude more than preventing it with a filter. Every dollar of prevention is many dollars not spent on treatment.
- Costs collapse with scale. Community-scale ultrafiltration at a school or clinic delivers safe water at $0.50 to $1.50 per person per year — a ratio few interventions can match.
- Targeting is everything. The same filter delivers radically different impact in a community with 50% diarrheal disease prevalence versus 5%. We deploy where the math works hardest.
For full cost data and methodology, see Technoeconomic Analysis below.
An Enduring Public Health Catastrophe
The global drinking-water crisis is preventable, and it kills children at the rate of one every twenty-three seconds. 2.2 billion people lack safely managed drinking water — defined as a source that is accessible, available when needed, and free from contamination.
Waterborne disease is a leading cause of mortality in children under five, responsible for roughly 1.4 million child deaths annually — about 15% of all under-five deaths in developing countries. The burden falls disproportionately on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which together account for more than 80% of waterborne disease deaths in children.
The Pathogens, By Size
Waterborne disease agents fall into three categories. Each requires a different removal or inactivation strategy:
- Protozoa (5–15 µm) — Giardia, Cryptosporidium. The largest pathogens, easiest to remove with most physical filters.
- Bacteria (1–5 µm) — E. coli, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella typhi. Removed by fine filtration; inactivated by chemical or UV disinfection.
- Viruses (0.02–0.3 µm) — Rotavirus, Norovirus, Hepatitis A. The smallest pathogens, requiring ultrafiltration, chlorination, or UV.
The Daily Toll
Annual Deaths
From diarrheal disease alone — cholera, typhoid, dysentery
Chronic Infections
People with parasitic infections like schistosomiasis
School Days Lost
Annually, to water-related illness
The Economic Toll
Beyond the human tragedy, waterborne disease drains an estimated $260 billion globally each year through lost productivity, medical costs, and reduced economic potential. Some nations lose up to 6.4% of GDP to poor water and sanitation outcomes. A collective 250 million hours every day are spent — disproportionately by women and girls — walking to fetch water.
Diagnose. Design. Deploy.
We don't sell technology. We solve specific water problems for specific communities, using the cheapest and most durable intervention that actually fits the chemistry, the infrastructure, and the people on the ground.
1. Diagnose the Chemistry
Every project begins with field measurements: pathogen indicators (E. coli most commonly), turbidity, pH, contamination context, and seasonal patterns. We characterize the source — surface water, groundwater, rainfall capture, mixed — and the disease pattern. Without this baseline, technology selection is a guess.
2. Design the Right Solution
Technology selection is a decision, not a default. A community of 50 households on a turbid river needs a different solution than a school sitting on a high-yield clean borehole. We weigh five factors:
- Pathogen profile — what the water actually carries
- Source characteristics — turbidity, flow, seasonal variability
- Infrastructure — power availability, supply-chain access for consumables
- Operational capacity — who maintains the system, with what training, on what budget
- Cultural fit — what the community will actually use, every day, for years
3. Hand It Off — and Stay Connected
We are technical advisors, not implementers. Local NGOs and community leaders deploy and maintain. We provide design, training, and ongoing remote technical support. This is what makes solutions last — community ownership, with expert backstop.
The graveyard of failed water projects is full of donated systems that didn't match the chemistry, didn't fit the infrastructure, or weren't maintainable by the people who inherited them. We exist because that pattern is fixable.
Treatment Technologies
A range of proven technologies exists to combat waterborne disease. Each has trade-offs across cost, complexity, and pathogen coverage. The right answer is always context-specific.
Disinfection — Inactivating the Pathogens
Boiling
Mechanism: Thermal energy denatures proteins and destroys all waterborne pathogens. A rolling boil for one minute is sufficient at most elevations.
Trade-offs: Universally understood and effective, but unsustainable long-term. High fuel demand contributes to deforestation and indoor air pollution. Best reserved for emergencies.
Chlorination
Mechanism: Sodium hypochlorite damages cell membranes and disrupts enzymatic function. Highly effective against bacteria and viruses; less effective against Cryptosporidium.
Trade-offs: Cheap and scalable, but requires reliable supply chain and accurate dosing. Less effective in turbid water where suspended particles shield pathogens.
UV Disinfection
Mechanism: 254 nm UV light damages microbial DNA, preventing reproduction. Effective against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
Trade-offs: No chemical residual, no taste impact, but requires electricity and lamp replacement. Best where reliable power exists.
Filtration — Physically Removing the Pathogens
Ceramic Filters
Mechanism: Sub-micron ceramic pores physically block bacteria and protozoa. Often impregnated with colloidal silver for residual bacteriostatic effect.
Trade-offs: Can be locally produced. Slow flow rate and physical fragility are drawbacks. Does not remove viruses.
Biosand Filters
Mechanism: Layered sand and gravel with a biologically active "schmutzdecke" layer that consumes organic contaminants and pathogens.
Trade-offs: Long lifespan (10+ years, often decades), no recurring consumables. Requires careful initial setup and a "ripening" period before reaching full efficacy.
Gravity Membrane Filters
Mechanism: Hollow-fiber ultrafiltration membranes (typically 0.1–0.02 µm pore size) with gravity as the driving pressure.
Trade-offs: Long lifespan, no power needed, very high pathogen removal. Higher upfront cost. Effective on bacteria and protozoa; some configurations on viruses.
Solar-Powered Ultrafiltration
Mechanism: Pressurized membrane filtration with effective pore sizes of 0.01 µm — small enough to physically block viruses. Solar PV provides the pressure source.
Trade-offs: Highest pathogen protection of any field-deployable technology. Higher capital cost; requires skilled installation and periodic maintenance. Best for community hubs (schools, clinics) serving 100+ people.
Technoeconomic Analysis
Full cost data, decision logic, and methodology behind our technology selections. This is the section to read if you are evaluating us as a technical partner, comparing interventions for a grant program, or trying to understand exactly how the cost-effectiveness numbers in the Calculate Your Impact section are derived.
Cost Comparison: Capital and Annual Per-Person Costs
| Technology | Scale | Capital Cost | Lifespan | Annual $/Person | Key Trade-offs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiling | Household | $0 | N/A | $75 – $175+ | Kills everything; fuel cost prohibitive |
| Chlorination | Household | $0 – $20 | Ongoing | $3 – $6 | Cheap and effective; supply chain risk |
| Ceramic filter | Household | $15 – $50 | 2–5 years | $3 – $25 | Local production; fragile, no virus removal |
| Gravity membrane | Household | $25 – $95 | 10+ years | $0.11 – $1.46 | Long life, no power; limited virus removal |
| Biosand filter | Household | $60 – $150 | 10+ years | $0.26 – $4.02 | Zero recurring cost; setup intensive |
| Solar UF | Community | $400 – $10,000+ | 5–15 years | $1 – $18 | Removes all pathogens; capital intensive |
Annual costs assume ~3.8 L per person per day. Actual costs vary significantly by region, supply chain, and local labor.
Decision Logic: Matching Technology to Context
| Technology | Optimal Situation | Key Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Solar Ultrafiltration | Schools, clinics, water kiosks with sun + skilled maintenance access | Highest protection level; economies of scale at 100+ users |
| Gravity Membrane | Households seeking durable, no-power solution | Excellent balance of cost, simplicity, 10+ year lifespan |
| Biosand Filter | Settled households with construction support available | Zero recurring cost; 10+ year lifespan; generational investment |
| Chlorination + Charcoal | Communities with reliable bleach supply chain | Extremely low cost; empowers with transferable skills |
| Ceramic Filter | Areas with local ceramic-production capacity | Supports local economy; moderate efficacy |
The Science of Selection
Match the Filter to the Pathogen Profile
Pathogen size sets the floor for filter pore size. Viruses (0.02–0.3 µm) are the strictest constraint — anything larger than 0.02 µm pore size will pass viruses. Most ceramic and biosand filters target the bacteria/protozoa range and rely on chemical disinfection or natural die-off for virus management. Hollow-fiber ultrafiltration crosses into virus removal, at higher cost.
Disinfection vs. Filtration — Or Both
Disinfection (chlorine, UV, boiling) inactivates pathogens but leaves them physically present. Filtration removes them. Disinfection alone struggles with turbid water; filtration alone struggles with viruses. The most resilient systems combine both — filter first to reduce turbidity and load, then disinfect to provide a residual safety margin.
Power and Supply Chain Realities
Two questions kill more well-intentioned water projects than any other:
- "Where will the consumables come from in five years?" Chlorine tablets, replacement filter cartridges, and lamps that aren't locally available create slow-motion failure. We design around what's locally sourceable.
- "What happens when the power dies?" Grid power in many of our communities is intermittent. We default to gravity-driven and solar-powered systems unless context demands otherwise.
The Turbidity Problem
Surface water in tropical climates is heavily turbid, especially in rainy seasons. Suspended particles shield pathogens from chlorine and UV, and they clog membrane filters. Pre-treatment — settling, coagulation, or coarse filtration — is often required before primary treatment, and is frequently overlooked in turnkey designs sold by Western vendors.
From Reaction to Anticipation
The traditional model of disaster response is reactive. A typhoon makes landfall, infrastructure collapses, water becomes contaminated, disease outbreaks follow within days, and emergency supplies arrive — usually too late, often in the wrong places, sometimes not at all. The cost in lives, money, and recovery time is enormous, and largely avoidable.
Anticipatory action inverts the model. Instead of responding after a disaster, we use predictive data to position water-treatment supplies and bottled water before the disaster strikes — at the specific locations most likely to be cut off, contaminated, or overwhelmed.
A liter of bottled water delivered to a community three days before a typhoon makes landfall is worth more than a thousand liters delivered three days after. The difference is the difference between prevention and triage.
Why Water Failures Cascade in Disasters
Storm surge, flooding, and infrastructure damage destroy the conditions that keep drinking water safe:
- Source contamination. Wells, springs, and surface intakes become contaminated by floodwater carrying sewage, agricultural runoff, and chemical pollution.
- Power loss. Treatment plants, pumps, and UV systems fail. Communities revert to raw, untreated water.
- Supply-chain disruption. Chlorine, replacement filters, and other consumables can't be delivered for days or weeks.
- Population displacement. Evacuation centers concentrate people, increasing disease transmission risk if water is inadequate.
Waterborne disease typically emerges within 5–10 days of a major flooding event. Cholera, dysentery, and typhoid all spike. Children, elderly, and the immunocompromised die first.
What Anticipatory Action Looks Like
- Predict. Combine storm forecasts with community-vulnerability data to identify which specific places will need help, when, and at what severity.
- Pre-position. Stage water-treatment supplies and bottled water with local partners before infrastructure fails.
- Activate. Coordinate with local government, NGOs, and community health workers to distribute supplies in the first hours after impact — when conventional response chains are still scrambling.
The Anticipatory Action Platform
We are building an open, free predictive platform that fuses meteorological forecasts with community-vulnerability data to identify the populations most likely to need water-related support during major storms. Initial deployment is the Philippines, where typhoon frequency, infrastructure fragility, and community vulnerability create a recurring crisis pattern. Caribbean and U.S. Gulf Coast deployment follows.
The platform fuses storm forecast, community vulnerability, and historical data into a single risk score per location.
How the Platform Works
1. Hazard Layer — Where the Storm Is Going
Real-time tropical cyclone forecasts feed the system continuously. Each forecast carries a confidence interval — the likelihood the storm stays within a given track band — which we propagate through every downstream calculation. The platform also ingests historical data from every typhoon in the basin since 2000, allowing us to backtest predictions against known outcomes.
2. Vulnerability Layer — Who Is Most Exposed
Storm impact alone doesn't predict water-crisis severity. A wealthy coastal city with redundant infrastructure recovers in days. A poor inland community with a single contaminated well, marginal sanitation, and pre-existing food insecurity faces weeks of acute risk. The platform combines:
- Drinking-water source type and treatment infrastructure
- Economic vulnerability (using sources like Meta's Relative Wealth Index)
- Sanitation infrastructure and health-facility access
- Food security and nutritional baseline
- Shelter quality and evacuation capacity
3. Risk Synthesis — Where to Send Help, in What Order
The platform combines hazard probability and community vulnerability into a single risk score per geographic unit, time-resolved over the storm's expected impact window. Output is a ranked list of priority locations with quantified people-at-risk, expected impact severity, and time-to-impact — actionable inputs for pre-positioning decisions by us, partner NGOs, and government emergency-management agencies.
What Makes It Different
- Free for governments. The platform is provided pro bono to disaster-management agencies. No license fees, no strings.
- Transparent methodology. Every data source, every weighting decision, and every uncertainty estimate is visible. Decision-makers can interrogate the model rather than trust a black box.
- Built for action, not analysis. Output is operational — pre-positioning recommendations, not academic risk reports.
- Backtested against history. Performance is measured against actual outcomes from prior storms, not theoretical scenarios.
Try the Platform
The platform is in active development for the Philippines. The current build is a working prototype — the data sources are real, the predictions run live, and the historical backtesting is functional. We are iterating on the user experience and adding vulnerability layers as new data becomes available.
Anticipatory Action Platform — Live Prototype
Browse historical typhoons, simulate hypothetical storms, draw custom paths, and watch the risk model resolve real populations at real coordinates.
Open the Platform →What You Can Do With It Today
- Real-time mode. See current forecasts overlaid on community-vulnerability data for the Philippines.
- Historical mode. Browse 539 real typhoons from 2000–2026 and see what the model would have predicted given current vulnerability data.
- Simulation mode. Generate or draw a custom storm path, set wind and rainfall parameters, and see the resulting population-at-risk estimates.
- Confidence intervals. Adjust how much weight to give worst-case versus most-likely scenarios — useful for both conservative and aggressive pre-positioning strategies.
Partner With Us on the Platform
We are looking for two kinds of partners. First, government emergency-management agencies and disaster-response NGOs who would use the platform operationally — your real-world feedback is what makes the tool useful. Second, technical contributors with relevant expertise: storm physics, vulnerability modeling, geospatial analysis, or front-end engineering. The platform is open development; the more eyes and hands, the better the predictions.