Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The reader should note that the questionnaires did not necessarily obtain a statistically valid <br />sampling of the various segments of water users and/ or professionals identified in Table 3, and <br />therefore some limitations must be recognized regarding the lack of statistical significance of the <br />questionnaire responses. Nonetheless,. the results of the questionnaire have some value in <br />characterizing water user needs and perceptions within each of the geographies where the <br />Workshops were held. <br /> <br />The specific responses collected for each of the four Workshops are summarized first, then a <br />swnmary of the questionnaire responses by water user and professional type is provided. All <br />questionnaire responses by location are provided on the attached CD for CWCB reference and <br />use. <br /> <br />Greeley <br />Greeley participants indicated the most need for information and teclmical and fmancial assistance <br />of any of theW orkshops. More than half of all the respondents (8 of t 3) indicated .that there is a <br />substantial need for information on water conservation implementationJ and one half of the <br />respondents indicated that there is a substantial need for financial support to implement water <br />conservation plans and develop drought mitigation plans. At least one half of the respondents <br />indicated that there is more than "some need" (L e., a 1 or 2 on a scale of five) for the maj ority of <br />the informational, technical and financial assistance categories included in the <br />questionnaire. Only water infrastructure mapping had a cumulative response that was less than <br />"some need" (Le., less than a 3 on a scale of t to 5). <br /> <br />Pagosa Springs <br />Pagosa Springs participants had similar response to those identified in Greeley, with nearly 2 out <br />of every 3 indicating a need for more information regarding implementation of water <br />conservation measures and programs. A similar amount of questionnaire respondents indicated <br />that technical assistance related to cost/benefit analyses of measures and programs is also one <br />of the areas most important need regarding water conservation planning and implementation. <br />Similar to Greeley,. only water wrastructuremapping had a cumulative response that was less <br />than "some need" . <br /> <br />Grand Junction <br />Grand Junction participants indicated the least n,eed for water conservation resources of the four <br />Workshops. In fact, abo'-:lt one third of the categories included in ~e questionnaire were deemed <br />by the respondents as there being less than "some need", including the following: water <br />infrastructure mappingJ applicability of specific measures and programs, use of saved water for <br />environmental purposes, use of saved water for recreational purposes, use of saved water for <br />sustaining return flows, water conservation of indoor water use and leak detection and repair. <br />Grand Junction 1 s Workshop attendees also appear to indicate that financial assistance for drought <br />mitigation planning less than "some need". The questionnaire respondents indicated that <br />technical support for water conservation implementation education,. and 'financial support <br />for water conservation planning are their greatest needs, with information for water <br />conservation planning and implementation and technical support for outdoor water use <br />management closely behind. <br /> <br />7 <br />