Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attachment C presents the summary for each segment of responses obtained color coded to <br />highlight the top 5 and hottom 5 needs as indicated by the respondents. In general, there are <br />more differences across the segments than agreements. For example, agricultural water providers <br />and users, and educators identified on average less than "some need" (Le., greater than 3 on a <br />scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being substantial need and 5 being no need) for the vast majority of areas of <br />potential need; whereas, realtors and consultants identified on average a 2 or less for the same <br />areas of potential need. That said, three key areas of agreement were identified. All segments <br />agreed that information and fmancial support related to water conservation program <br />implementation was at or near the top of identified needs; and technical support for water system <br />infrastructure was at or near the bottom of needs4 <br /> <br />Disagreements were more prevalent. For example, water conservancy districts identified <br />technical assistanoe with general water conservation planning as their greatest need, whereas <br />consultants) educators and others ranked this as near the bottom of their needs (and presumeably <br />for their clients needs as well). Municipal providers ranked this in the middle of the pack. <br />Technical support related to uses for saved water was also substantially different for different <br />groups. N early all the groups identified that technical support for saved water uses was not <br />substantial, relative to other needs; however agricultural water users and providers ranked <br />technical assistance to plan for using saved water for environmental flows and to sustain return <br />flows near the top of their needs. Conversely, agricultural user indicated that financial support <br />for water conservation planning and implementation was not a need) whereas most other groups <br />excluding County staff, ranked financial support as at or near the top of their needs. <br /> <br />This difference in need for the different groups of water users and professionals is not strrprising <br />given the diversity of interests represented at the Workshops. However) each of the groups <br />invested time to participate in the Workshops, ftrrther supporting the observation that diverse <br />water interests across the state broadly recognize education efforts as valuable and important. <br /> <br />9 <br />