CSIReportColoradoBasinRoundtable

Home Browse Search

Mapping the Colorado Basin Rou ndtable’s Water Policy Networks most other affiliations. As explored earlier, the external stakeholders in the study are more likely to identify members of the Colorado Basin Roundtable who have environmental and recreational affiliations as their key contacts. The results support the interpretation that the environmental stakeholders identified by roundtable members were more likely to respond to the survey. Finally, none of the elected or appointed officials who are highly ranked in the information-sharing network, including three members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, completed the survey. This is consistent with results across all elected and appointed officials, with very few completing the survey. Key Finding 4.12: The Among those 16 who did respond to the survey, more than individuals who most half live on the Front Range. The 16 include frequently exchange representatives of all nine water roundtables and the IBCC. information with survey They represent only three of the five values clusters. Four respondents are perceived as are in the Protecting Consumptive Needs cluster, seven are trustworthy, dependable, and in the Balancing Needs cluster, and five are in the influential by many Protecting Non-Consumptive Needs cluster. None of the 16 respondents, and are respondents are found in either the Agriculture or Broken overwhelmingly perceived as System clusters. having shared goals by respondents to the survey. The 16 individuals who did respond are not only the ones who others most frequently exchange information with, they are also significantly more likely to be perceived positively on the other network questions. This suggests that there is a relationship between the frequency of contact with key water stakeholders and perceptions of trust, dependability, influence, importance of information shared, and shared goals. It is on the last of these measures, perceptions of shared goals, that the greatest difference exists between the 16 most central stakeholders and all of the other stakeholders outside the Colorado Basin Roundtable. These 16 who are the respondents most frequently in communication with the rest of the respondents are overwhelmingly perceived by many other respondents to share their goals. Conclusion Values held by water stakeholders who are participating in or connected to the Colorado Basin Roundtable appear to have a great deal of alignment with how the stakeholders perceive others in the community. Stakeholders on the Colorado Basin Roundtable who prioritize non- consumptive needs have a tight network of active information sharing and trust. Stakeholders on the Colorado Basin Roundtable with agricultural priorities are generally trusting of others on the roundtable, but less tightly connected as a group than the non-consumptive cluster. Those who prioritize other consumptive needs are the least likely to be tightly connected to anyone, those who share their values or others at the roundtable. These differences may help to understand why and how different groups are getting – or not getting –their goals met by the roundtable or other water policy processes. One means for bridging these different groups may be the key individuals who are widely communicated with, trusted, and believed to share similar goals in water policy and management issues. Colorado Institute of Public Policy 37 of 64