WETF Final ReportJuly2008

• Project Type: General OWC
• Project Name: Water Education Task Force
• Title: Water Education Task Force Final Report
• Date: 10/1/2008
• County: Statewide
• Water Conservation - Doc Type: Final Report

o Diverse groups are involved.
o Large water providers are producing water-related messages.
2. Collaboration opportunities abound
o Large network exists.
o Long term partnerships exist.
o Agricultural can be connected with municipal through large agricultural sectors.
3. Colorado Climate
o Arid state prone to drought.
o Conservation and protection are necessary.
o Water is limited and renewability is variable.
o Unique water rights system exists.
o High level of public awareness.
4. Climate change
o National media attention raises interest and provides focus on water issues.
5. Receptive audiences
o Colorado citizens participate in numerous water-related environmental and
recreational activities which creates a more receptive audience to water issues.
o Growing population provides different audiences to draw from and focus on.
6. State government support
o Current state government proactively supports and advocates for the protection
and wise use of water resources.
7. School Standards
o Colorado content standards are being revised; there may bean opportunity to
add more skills related to water education.
8. Funding
o Though limited, a diversity of funding sources are available.
Water Education Threats
1. Funding and staff resources
o Limited funding continues to be a primary obstacle to sustaining current water
education initiatives.
o Realities of managing water resources (e.g., cost, infrastructure gaps, rate
structures, etc.).
2. Quality
o Few measurement tools are being used to evaluate the quality of education
materials and resources.
o Few water education programs employ a method to evaluate their effectiveness
in modifying behaviors related to water protection and water conservation.
o Programs to measure effectiveness are often overlooked or poorly funded.
o Subjective measures of educational success/effectiveness are not valued as
much as quantitative measures.
o Lack of quality professional development opportunities for water education
providers.
3. Common Message
o Lack a common water education platform/message that promotes a consistent
message on the value of the state's water resources.
o There is a lack of common definitions and terminology forwater education ~e.g.,
brochures are not curricula, but both are called `education materials').
WETF 2008 Final Report pg. 10