My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CBT/WG Water Sharing Report
CWCB
>
Water Conservation
>
Backfile
>
CBT/WG Water Sharing Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2011 11:57:12 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:01:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Conservation
Project Type
Ag/Muni Grant
Applicant
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Project Name
Ag Options
Title
Interruptible Supply Contracts for Water-Sharing Between the Colorado Big Thompson and Windy Gap Projects
Date
1/1/1996
County
Larimer
Water Conservation - Doc Type
Final Report
Document Relationships
NCWCD Ag Options Program Applic
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
NCWCD Ag Options Program Award Letter
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
NCWCD Ag Options Program Prog Report
(Attachment)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />APPENDIX A <br /> <br />Compilation of survey responses <br /> <br />In the summer of 1995, a questionnaire was distributed to approximately 280 <br />recipients in all water user categories. The survey was designed to elicit information <br />about general feelings regarding use of interruptible supply arrangements in the District, <br />as well as input on specific issues relating to contract structure. In addition, the survey <br />provided a means of gauging the level of knowledge and understanding that respondents <br />had regarding these arrangements. <br /> <br />To encourage respondents to complete and return the questionnaire, it was kept <br />short -- only three pages long. A block was provided for name and address, but <br />respondents were told that this information was optional and that they could submit the <br />survey anonymously if they preferred. The majority of respondents did give their names <br />and addresses. Forty-three responses were received -- 28 from agricultural users, <br />11 from domestic water suppliers, 3 from industrial users, and one response which did <br />not specify a type of use. <br /> <br />This appendix includes a copy of the original questionnaire, followed by a <br />summary of responses. The information is summarized here by user category: <br />agricultural, domestic, and industrial. Multiple choice answers are compiled into totals; <br />comments are set out individually and are either quoted verbatim or paraphrased. <br />Individual respondents are not identified in connection with specific responses. <br /> <br />In reviewing this material, the reader should keep in mind that there was no <br />attempt to identify a representative sample of water users to receive the questionnaire. <br />Responses received mayor may not accurately represent a majority view of water users <br />in the District. <br /> <br />(NOTE: Questions eliciting identifying information, such as number of C-BT units <br />owned or crops raised using C-BT water, are not included in this summary.) <br /> <br />A-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.