https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7287-2439
Figures
Abstract
Prolonged drought conditions in the western United States have prompted an interest in improved water resource management. In the past two decades, Colorado has experienced decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures, causing persistent meteorological and agricultural drought. In times of limited water resources, more precise water accounting and water conservation is often required. We investigated technological and monitoring gaps in Colorado water resource management using a sequential explanatory mix-method approach, including key informant interviews and a survey study. Key informant interviews gave insight into water monitoring concerns and informed a state-wide survey on monitoring gaps and water resource challenges. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview transcripts and survey results found that the most critical monitoring gaps for water managers in Colorado are: (1) streamflow forecasting and improved understanding of Colorado snowpack, (2) expanding groundwater and soil moisture monitoring, (3) wildfire impacts on watershed health, (4) improved accuracy and reliability of data sources, and (5) addressing these gaps while maintaining an emphasis on community collaboration. Challenges for Colorado managers varied by stakeholder basin and sector but included changes in hydrologic systems due to the effects of extended drought, climate change, and related anthropogenic impacts and negative impacts of intensifying wildfire seasons on water quality and watershed health.
Citation: Holland M, Demaree K, Thomas E (2023) Investigating technology opportunities toward improved Colorado water monitoring: Insights from key informant interviews and stakeholder surveys. PLOS Water 2(6): e0000054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000054
Editor: Soni M. Pradhanang, University of Rhode Island, UNITED STATES
Received: July 11, 2022; Accepted: March 31, 2023; Published: June 9, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Holland et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data is available here: Holland, Melanie; Demaree, Kat; Thomas, Evan. 2023. "Data for: Investigating technology opportunities toward improved Colorado water monitoring: Insights from key informant interviews and stakeholder surveys". Qualitative Data Repository. https://data.qdr.syr.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5064/F6TFIYHX. QDR Main Collection. V1.
Funding: ET: This work was funded to Evan Thomas by the State of Colorado under House Bill 21-1268 and the Moore Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 Introduction
Colorado is home to the headwaters of four major river systems in the United States and overlays three primary aquifer systems, making water resources a focal point of policy, society, and science throughout the state. To manage these systems, Colorado must efficiently monitor water resources and ensure that allotments and legal requirements are fulfilled. However, the lack of a consistent surface water or groundwater data monitoring scheme inhibits water managers from optimizing conservation, accurately predicting local demand and water availability, allocating and trading resources, and effectively managing risk. To assess the challenges of water management in Colorado, we employ key informant interviews and a survey study to identify data gaps in Colorado water monitoring across various sectors, investigate the most pressing challenges in Colorado water, and assess how technology can be harnessed to address data gaps and management issues.
Aridification in the western United States has motivated improved water resource monitoring to more effectively manage water. In the past two decades, Colorado has experienced decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures, causing persistent meteorological and agricultural drought [1]. In times of limited water resources, more precise water accounting and water conservation are often required. As surface water is depleted, water users often turn to groundwater to counterbalance reduced supply. For this reason, groundwater resources have become increasingly important throughout Colorado in recent years, with wells supplying approximately 20% of the population [2]. Fig 1 shows several primary aquifer systems in Colorado, which provide agricultural and drinking water throughout the state. Prolonged drought and unsustainable groundwater extraction have caused some of Colorado’s aquifers to be depleted faster than they can be replenished [3], which has incentivized new management strategies and regulations geared towards preserving groundwater resources.
Shaded areas represent aquifers, including the Ogallala or High Plains aquifer system in the east, the Rio Grande aquifer system in the south, the central Denver Basin aquifer system, and the Colorado Plateaus aquifer system in the west (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, USGS National Hydrography Dataset Downloadable Data Collection).
However, inconsistencies in data collection and distribution may introduce a hindrance to the successful conservation of water resources and the ability to meet legislative requirements. Although surface water is more routinely monitored than groundwater throughout the western United States, the methods of monitoring surface water can vary, with neighboring regions often using different technologies or methods to measure similar values. In a 2014 study, researchers used informant interviews to investigate state drought programs in the western United States and found that state officials recognized a need for better data to improve and inform drought predictions and monitoring [4]. In addition to these factors, access to monitoring technologies or water management projects is often restricted by access to state funding and perceived water-related risk. Basins will typically implement a water monitoring scheme if there is money to support a project, if there is community support, and if there is a legitimate need. This creates data shortages in regions of Colorado while bolstering water monitoring in other regions, thereby impeding the ease of water transactions and hampering the ability of water managers to meet regional compact compliance [5].
State water policies and compacts influence or underpin many decisions that Colorado water managers make. Interstate compacts are designed to settle existing or mitigate future controversy between two or more states concerning water use by stipulating water allocations. Colorado has intrastate and interstate water agreements among stakeholders, including nine interstate compacts, two U.S. Supreme Court decrees and one international treaty that govern how much water the state is entitled to use. These agreements determine the amount of surface water allocated between and within each state. However, due to the interdependent nature of surface and groundwater, they can also impact how much groundwater is available for each state to pump.
Basins in Colorado manage water using the Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS), developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR). The CDSS provides data analytic tools, data visualizations, and management resources. The CDSS uses various models to depict crop consumptive use (StateCU), groundwater (MODFLOW), surface water (StateMod), and the water budget (StateWB). The system also incorporates tools to view water rights and water transactions within the state. Engineering firms and non-governmental organizations have created management tools for county or city level water monitoring projects. However, data gaps and technology gaps may inhibit the effectiveness of such platforms. Understanding the general perception of the tools and platforms available, as well as identifying any gaps within them, is important to create effective state-wide water management.
Public perception of hydrology and climate events is integral to water management projects, and may influence which projects receive funding. Studies consistently find policymakers’ actions reflect public preferences and opinion [6]. Management of risks such as extreme weather events are subject to public debate and input, perceptions of these risks are of considerable interest to local planners and policymakers [7, 8]. The growing importance of public participation in environmental hazards planning is well documented [9]. Slovic (2000) found that public risk perception plays a key role in shaping natural hazards policy and management response systems [10]. In this study, we investigate the perception of the current technologies, tools, and data availability in Colorado, as well as challenges to water management and potential barriers to the implementation of new technology using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach.
Mixed-methods approaches have been implemented widely in water resource management to assess the effectiveness of management strategies [11], and environmental policy investigations [12]. Specifically, we deployed an exploratory mixed-method approach, in which research is divided into distinct phases and the results from initial phases guide the latter phases [13]. In the first phase of this study, twenty-eight key stakeholders were interviewed on water monitoring issues and these interviews were coded using ATLAS.ti 9. Then, in phase two, the emergent themes and qualitative results from the interview analysis were used to create a survey tool to gather widespread information.
With increased climate variability, water managers in Colorado are faced with the complex challenge of managing a diminishing resource to supply an increasing population. In this study, we investigate gaps and challenges in water monitoring in the state of Colorado using informant interviews and a survey tool. The primary results of this investigation were derived from quantitative data from the coding process and survey analysis, and therefore these topics are the main focus of this study. The key results from this analysis give insight into the principle difficulties in water monitoring throughout the state of Colorado.
2 Methodology
In this analysis, we use a sequential mixed-method approach, wherein key informant interviews (Section 2.1) are used to develop a survey tool (Section 2.2) to determine technological gaps in Colorado water monitoring. We employ qualitative coding methods and quantitative techniques to analyze transcripts from key informant interviews, while using relative frequency and statistical approaches to analyze survey results.
2.1 Key informant interviews
Key informant interviews (KII) were conducted to investigate water monitoring needs from a range of stakeholders, including state legislatures, indigenous tribes, agriculturalists, and water managers.
Informant interviews are qualitative, in-depth interviews used to engage in discussion and collect information from a wide range of experts in the field of study [14, 15]. Utilized for decades in studies on climate and water related issues, informant interviews improve understanding of stakeholder experience and perception [16]. This investigative tool has been employed to explore expert opinions on science and policy, identify scientific gaps, gather stakeholder views on climate change and drought perception [17, 18], and determine public perception of climate issues and associated water issues [7, 19, 20]. Here, a panel of experts in Colorado water were interviewed to better understand water management challenges, and to ultimately inform a wide-spread survey study on water monitoring.
Twenty-eight informant interviews were conducted from September 2021 to February 2022 with a range of water managers and experts statewide, including state legislative representatives, indigenous community leaders, and agricultural producers. Key informants were selected based on their knowledge of issues relevant to the study, the sector or organization that they represent, and their contributions to Colorado water. Interviewee selection was initially purposive, with specific informants sought out based on the sector and basin that they represented and their prominence in the field. Subsequent informants were identified with a snowball sampling style, as informants connected our team to other experts in the field. Thirty-three individuals were asked to participate in interviews; five individuals either did not respond to the request or referred our team to a different expert. All interviews were conducted on an online video meeting platform or in person. Interviews followed a semi-structured line of questioning that allowed for in-depth conversation, as conversation-style interviews allow for greater exploration and contemplation of a topic [21]. All interviews had a duration of approximately 60 minutes, with occasional follow-up discussions when needed for additional information or clarity. Interviews were recorded and transcribed with the consent of participants, and the identities of the interviewees will remain anonymous for the purpose of this analysis.
Theoretical saturation was determined based on the sectors and basins that each interviewee represented. Once it was determined that themes were repeated and no new information was obtained from interviews, the interviews were concluded.
Key informant interviews focused on the following topics:
- Data sources and data collection
- Current monitoring practices
- Perceived gaps in monitoring, data collection and collaboration
- Greatest challenges facing Colorado water management
Interviews were qualitatively coded using ATLAS.ti 9, a software that enables systematic analysis of qualitative data. From this analysis, themes of challenges in water monitoring emerged and were used to create lists of nominal classifications. The codes were then refined into a coding dictionary with multiple code groups to be used during the analysis. A code frequency table was produced to identify commonly used codes, and a matrix coding query was created to compare code occurrence by sector and region. In addition, a code co-occurrence matrix was created to analyze codes that are frequently mentioned together to identify important monitoring gaps and challenges and highlight trends amongst sectors and basins.
Each transcript was double coded by two researchers to quantify interpretation bias. Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient is a quantitative measure to determine if multiple coders identify similar data to be relevant for coded topics and themes. Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient is calculated as follows:
where D0 is the observed disagreement between coders and De is the expected disagreement between coders by random chance. For the above method, α = 1 indicates perfect reliability and α = 0 indicates the absence of reliability between coding parties. A negative alpha coefficient is indicative of greater disagreements than expected by random chance. If codes are arbitrarily applied to a text than the value of D0 is equal to that of De resulting in α = 0.
Prevailing themes that arose from the interview process were used to create a survey tool. The survey was designed to further investigate topics frequently discussed in the informant interviews, and to gather specific information on the implementation of water management technologies and the use of water related data. The information gathered through both inquiries supports understanding of water manager and user perceptions across Colorado.
2.2 Survey study
A survey study was conducted to gather widespread information and perspectives on technology usage and data gaps in Colorado water management. The survey was designed in Qualtrics and disseminated to members of the Colorado Water Congress and affiliated organizations, including conservancy districts, irrigation districts, environmental organizations, and federal and state governmental agencies. The survey was sent directly to 273 recipients via email; 95 individuals responded, generating a response rate of 34.8%. In conjunction with key informant interviews, surveys are able to reach a wider audience and collect public opinion. For this study, a survey tool was designed to gather data on technology usage across Colorado and to better understand stakeholders’ perceptions of emerging technologies and water-related challenges.
Surveys have been used extensively to discern public perception of drought and water availability, as well as to investigate barriers to technological adoption. Krannich (1995) surveyed residents in San Joaquin Valley of southern California and the Grand Valley of western Colorado to investigate perception of risks of severe drought [22]. Diggs (1991) used a survey study to investigate the effect of drought experiences on Great Plains farmers’ perceptions of long-term climate change. Several studies have explored the impact of drought on farmers and demonstrated how drought experience influences drought perception in agricultural communities [23, 24]. Frasier (1998) surveyed irrigation technologies and management practices producers use and investigated why they use them [25]. Additionally, geographical location has been shown to influence perceptions of drought and water availability in the United States [26, 27]. For this reason, sector and basin designations are used throughout the study.
Survey questions investigated the following topics:
- Monitoring Metrics: What are the current metrics that are monitored, and what is the perception of those metrics? Are there any inefficiencies in current methods of monitoring or additional metrics that are needed?
- Monitoring Technologies: What is the level of satisfaction with current and emergent technologies used for water management? What are the perceptions of these technologies?
- Platforms and Tools: What is the level of satisfaction with the current platforms and tools that are utilized? What are the perceptions of these tools? What are areas of improvement?
- Greatest Challenges: What are the most important or pressing challenges faced in the management, current conditions, and future conditions of Colorado water?
The survey tool investigated water monitoring metrics and data gaps in Colorado water. A panel of six individuals with expertise in water resources and data collection were asked to review the survey before distribution [28]. A predefined list of thirty metrics, ranging from evapotranspiration to nitrate concentration, were included in the survey based on interviewer comments, expert opinion, and stakeholder outreach. These metrics were organized into five overarching categories: surface water, groundwater, land surface parameters, hydrologic parameters, and “other”. The results of this analysis are reported as relative frequencies with respect to each sector and basin, and focus on surface water and groundwater metric use. To gather information on the quality of data, survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the metrics or data sets as “Highly Satisfied”, “Somewhat Satisfied”, “Somewhat Unsatisfied”, or “Highly Unsatisfied”. Each rating was given an associated value of 2, 1, -1, and -2, respectively, to calculate overall satisfaction with each metric. Fig 7 shows the average satisfaction rating for each metric or data set.
The survey included three types of questions: multiple choice, rank order, and likert scale. For multiple choice questions, the relative frequency of responses was calculated to determine how often a response is selected. The relative frequency describes the portion of responses that fall into a category as a percent of total responses, and is calculated as r = xi/X, where xi is the number of times a response choice was selected and X is the total number of responses. This metric is used to compare the frequency of responses with sectors and basins throughout Colorado to determine similarities and differences in water management practices and perceptions.
Rank order questions are used to identify a participant’s top three preferences out of a wide selection. For all rank order analysis, a point system was applied to the responses, with first choices given a point value of 3, second choices given a point value of 2, and third choices given a point value of 1. The sum and average of the point values conveys the overall significance of each option. Rank order questions were analyzed in two ways: (1) calculating the average ranked response point value for each option, and (2) calculating the sum of point values for each option to determine an overall ranking of importance.
Rated Likert questions were used to measure participant attitudes through a point system, allowing them to express how much they agree or disagree with a statement. For this study, a four-point Likert scale was used with the following options: Highly Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat Unsatisfied, Highly Unsatisfied. This point scale encourages participants to state a positive or negative opinion on the subject matter. Since the intervals between Likert scale values cannot be presumed to be equal and mean and standard deviation are inappropriate for ordinal data [29], the results are summarized using the median.
3 Results
Examining public perception of the current state of technology and its role in water resource management is crucial for fully understanding challenges and potential solutions. The data from this section is available at the Qualitative Data Repository [30]. Qualitative analysis from twenty-eight key informant interviews identified emergent themes in technology use and challenges for Colorado water management. Fig 2 shows the basins and sectors represented by interviewees, with individuals able to represent multiple basins or sectors (i.e. an interviewee who conducts state-wide operations is considered to represent all basins). 60-69% of interviewees represented the South Platte and Colorado River Basins, 50-59% of interviewees represented the San Juan and Gunnison River Basins, and 40-49% of interviewees represented all other basins.
Left Panel: Percentage of key informants who reportedly worked in each basin. 40 percent of interviewees worked state-wide, and therefore represented all Colorado basins. Right Panel: Sector representation of informants. Informants were categorized into multiple sectors when applicable. (Image Base-layer: U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program, 2022, USGS National Hydrography Dataset for Hydrological Unit (HU) 4).
Key informant interviews gave insight into water monitoring concerns, and co-occurrence rates between both code groups and codes further information on the current landscape of water resources. Code groups derived from key informant interviews included Technology, Data, Challenges, Feasibility, Hydrology, Management, and Emotions. From these code groups, additional codes were generated and categorized based on the frequency of topics that arose.
Interview transcripts were double-coded to reduce coder bias, and Krippendorf’s alpha coefficient was calculated to be 0.993, conveying agreement between coders. Informants represented the basin and sector that they worked in or had expertise in, with many informants representing multiple basins and sectors.
Co-occurrence tables were created to visualize the relationship between certain codes within code groups and sector representation. Figs 3–5 show these code co-occurrence tables, with sectors as columns, codes listed as rows, and each value representing the frequency at which two codes were linked to the same transcribed word or sentence. Fig 3 specifically displays codes from the “Hydrology” code group, Fig 4 includes codes from the “Challenge” code group, and Fig 5 includes codes from the “Feasibility” code group.
Higher co-occurrence appears dark blue while codes appearing together less frequently are lighter blue.
Higher co-occurrence appears dark blue while codes appearing together less frequently are lighter blue.
Higher co-occurrence appears dark blue, while codes appearing together less frequently are lighter blue. Here, accessibility refers to ease of data and technology access.
Code groups and frequency of code co-occurrences were used to devise and direct survey questions. Many of the code groups created while coding the interview transcripts translated to sections of the survey questionnaire. All codes that arose from the coding process were further investigated in the survey, giving survey respondents the opportunity to corroborate with or differentiate from interview responses, with the goals of gathering a more widespread understanding of the emergent topics.
A total of 95 responses were collected from the following sectors: agriculture, municipal, governmental, non-governmental, judicial, conservancy, engineering, academic, and environmental. Survey responses were collected from all basins throughout Colorado. Respondents were able to select a “secondary sector” and were asked to select all basins that were applicable to their work. This is represented in the overall demographics of respondents. Fig 6 shows the number of responses from each sector and basin.
Left panel: Map of percent of total respondents from each basin, where respondents were able to select multiple basins. Right panel: Number of respondents from each sector. (Image Base-layer: U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program, 2022, USGS National Hydrography Dataset for Hydrological Unit (HU) 4).
Survey respondents were asked to select the technologies and metrics that they used and rank their satisfaction with each. As shown in Fig 7, respondents felt least satisfied with data on unaccounted-for losses (pipe leakage), groundwater and surface water exchanges (inflow of groundwater to surface water), and soil moisture. Metrics that scored highly indicate that they are well understood and have robust data sets. These include many land surface and surface water data, including land surface elevation, ground temperature, streamflow, and precipitation. Additionally, respondents were asked to select metrics that they were not yet using, but were interested in utilizing or collecting. Of the metrics listed, survey respondents were most interested in utilizing subsurface soil moisture, revealing a potential data gap in water resource management data sets.
Bar length correspond to the number of survey respondents who reported using or collecting each metric. Bar color corresponds to respondents’ average level of satisfaction with each metric. Black points represent the number of survey respondents who were interested in using a metric that they did not already utilize or collect.
Fig 8 shows that there was a relatively high satisfaction with established technologies and data management services implemented across the state, such as cloud-based data storage and remotely automated gates. There was moderate satisfaction with other widely used technologies, including smart water meters, which are becoming common in residential and agricultural settings, and various types of acoustic, pressure, and electrical sensors. Satisfaction among blockchain-based water trading users ranked the lowest, indicating that this technology has not been successfully implemented in Colorado to meet user needs. When asked which technologies respondents were interested in implementing that they were not already using, respondents most frequently were interested in using unmanned aerial vehicles or selected “none”, indicating that their technology implementation was adequate.
Bar length correspond to the number of survey respondents who reported using or collecting each technology. Bar color corresponds to respondents’ average level of satisfaction with each technology. Black points represent the number of survey respondents who were interested in implementing a technology that they did not already utilize.
Various data visualization and management tools exist to aid watershed stakeholders in the management of resources. Respondents were asked about their use of a range of platforms, to rate their satisfaction with each, and their interest in using platforms that they did not already utilize. Fig 9 shows that platforms received satisfaction ratings ranging from Satisfied to Somewhat Unsatisfied, notably excluding the extremes, as no platforms had an average rating of Highly Satisfied or Highly Unsatisfied. The highest ratings were for tools to assess flood risk and to trade water units, while the lowest ratings were for platforms to view real-time water quality and forecasts of surface and groundwater availability. Respondents reported to be most interested in implementation of a tool to assess impacts of stream diversions on groundwater levels, indicating a potential gap to be addressed in water management.
Bar length correspond to the number of survey respondents who reported using or collecting each platform. Bar color corresponds to respondents’ average level of satisfaction with each platform. Black points represent the number of survey respondents who were interested in using a platform that they did not already utilize.
Figs 10–12 display the percent of survey respondents from each sector who selected one or more options as a challenge in Colorado water management, where respondents were able to select as many options as they felt were applicable. Fig 11 shows that when asked to select which challenges were important to the management of Colorado’s waters, forecasting water availability and resilience to drought conditions were most frequently selected across all sectors.
Respondents were able to select multiple items, and the frequency of responses was normalized by the total number of respondents in each sector.
Respondents were able to select multiple items, and the frequency of responses was normalized by the total number of respondents in each sector.
Respondents were able to select multiple items, and the frequency of responses was normalized by the total number of respondents in each sector.
In Fig 11, when asked to select which challenges were important to the management of Colorado’s waters, resilience to wildfires was heavily selected by respondents across all sectors. Notably, ensuring the accuracy of data sources ranks amongst the most frequently selected challenges for the majority of sectors; 83.3% of respondents from conservancy districts, 72.0% of respondents from the governmental sector, and 75.0% of respondents in the environmental sector find that the accuracy of data sources is an important challenge. Overall, 61% of the total number of survey respondents selected the accuracy of data sources as an important challenge.
Survey analysis shows that maintaining aquifer health is a primary concern across all sectors, as shown in Fig 11. Correspondingly, Figs 13 and 14 show that surface water data tends to be more widely used or collected than groundwater data across all sectors. Notably, a higher percentage of respondents in engineering, agriculture, municipal, and non-governmental sectors reported to use more types of surface water data than groundwater data. Respondents in conservancy and environmental sectors used a higher percentage of groundwater data than was reported in other sectors. Furthermore, Fig 7 shows that respondents felt least satisfied with data on groundwater and surface water exchanges (inflow of groundwater to surface water) and subsurface soil moisture. When asked to select which challenges were important to the management of Colorado’s waters, maintaining aquifer health was selected by 57% of total survey respondents.
Fig 15 shows the percentage of survey respondents who collect or use groundwater data in each basin. Between 60-69% of respondents from the South Platte Basin collected groundwater data, 80-89% from the Rio Grande Basin, 70-79% from the Arkansas Basin, 100% from the Republican Basin, 80-89% from the Yampa/White Basins, 70-79% from the Gunnison Basin, 60-69% from the Colorado River Basin, 60-69% from the Dolores/San Juan Basins, and 50-59% from the North Platte Basin. It is important to note that these numbers are only representative of survey respondents, and therefore does not incorporate all possible groundwater data users.
Ranges of percentages are displayed for clarity, and values are normalized by the number of respondents from each basin. (Image Base-layer: U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program, 2022, USGS National Hydrography Dataset for Hydrological Unit (HU) 4).
While identifying monitoring and technological gaps is valuable, it is also important to determine factors that may influence technology uptake. Fig 16 shows the selection frequency of factors that may impact technology adoption. Accuracy, cost, and reliability of the technology were the most frequently selected factors, while the amount of operation and maintenance required and data privacy were the least frequently selected. These factors should be taken into consideration when instating water-related policy to increase overall effectiveness and adoption.
Respondents were asked to select as many items as were applicable.
The results of the informant interviews and stakeholder survey revealed opportunities to enhance the management of Colorado’s water with improved monitoring. Based on these results, a range of technological and monitoring gaps were identified across Colorado; an overview of these findings is presented in Section 4.
4 Discussion
Key informant interviews and the widespread survey of Colorado stakeholders investigated technology and monitoring challenges, perceptions of data gaps, and use of technology, monitoring data, and data visualization platforms. A deep-dive into the identified primary gaps is presented in this section, including water availability from snowpack and streamflow prediction (Section 4.1), monitoring groundwater and subsurface soil moisture (Section 4.2), impacts of wildfire and watershed health management (Section 4.3), high resolution and high accuracy data (Section 4.4), and data sharing and collaboration (Section 4.5).
4.1 Snowpack and streamflow prediction
Streamflow forecasting, which influences water supply management and use, relies on monitoring snowpack evolution from winter into spring [31]. Understanding the amount of water contained in snowpack, or snow water equivalent, is a complex process that involves understanding changes in snow depth and density over time. The majority of snow-water equivalent data is obtained through point observations, but this method lacks the overview that can be achieved with more spatially explicit monitoring. While observations with more spatial coverage would require greater effort and more tools, they provide a fuller picture of snowpack and may contribute to better streamflow models and forecasts.
Snowpack and streamflow forecasting were two of the management aspects cited most frequently in both informant interviews and the survey. One interviewee commented on the significance of surface water prediction, saying “[It is] important to have good streamflow forecasting, because it impacts water users here very significantly.” Survey results indicated that monitoring snowpack is considered a primary challenge among all of the sectors investigated. Commenting on surface water forecasting, an interviewee said, “It starts with snow; we make predictions about how much flow we’re going to get, and that informs our yields of our water rights.” Snowpack was cited by almost all of the interviewees, with emphasis on the importance of accurate snowpack forecasts. Across the Rocky Mountains, snow is a crucial fixture of the hydrologic cycle, with about 60-85% of Colorado streamflow originating as snowmelt [31]. Understanding snowpack is a major part of water management in Colorado and can present a challenge when there are monitoring gaps or inaccurate data.
4.2 Groundwater and subsurface soil moisture
Groundwater data collection differs among basins in Colorado, with each utilizing groundwater data for varying purposes. All basins have interest in collecting groundwater data, but some rely on it more than others. For example, districts in the South Platte and Arkansas basins are turning more to groundwater to ensure sufficient water supplies as arid conditions persist. As one interviewee stated, “The capacity and the ability to predict [groundwater] pumping on almost a real-time basis is important to me.” This indicates that there is potential to improve and expand upon groundwater data collection to aid in water management.
Key informant interview analysis shows that discussions of groundwater were most frequent in basins with higher groundwater reliance. Informants from the Rio Grande Basin, which sits on top of a 70,000 square-mile aquifer [32], mentioned groundwater 18% more than other basins on average. Other basins with a strong interest in groundwater management include the San Juan-Dolores-San Miguel Basin and the eastern South Platte Basin; the latter partially overlays the Ogallala Aquifer. Access to robust soil moisture data is a challenge in water management, as one interviewee explains, “[J]ust thinking about where the water is, it goes from the snow, goes into the soil. So soil moisture is an important piece. It’s tricky though, because unlike snow, which sits on the land surface, you can at least see where it is and isn’t…So soil moisture monitoring is really complicated.”
Conservancy district respondents reported to have collected or utilized the highest percentage of both surface and groundwater metrics; this is a logical result, as some conservancy districts oversee augmentation plans where accounting relies on a range of metrics from diversions, to recharge, to replacement water and are therefore required to collect large amounts of data. Across all sectors, groundwater data was collected or utilized far less than surface water data. This data gap may be explained by the quantity of groundwater regulations compared to surface water regulations, which may disincentivise groundwater data collection.
4.3 Wildfire and watershed health
Recent years saw Colorado wildfires increase in size and frequency. Stakeholders from municipal sectors in the South Platte basin, which houses the city of Denver, expressed the strongest concern about the potential for wildfire impacts on water resources. In one interview with a municipal stakeholder, wildfires were cited as “the biggest risk to our water supply.” These discussions focused on water quality issues that are commonplace after watersheds burn. One interviewee stated, “[C]ompound hazards like wildfires produce water quality issues that often happens during drought. So you have this intense need for water, [but] the quality of the water may not be suitable.”
In the wake of a wildfire, debris and runoff increase, polluting the water and causing expensive problems for municipal water supplies. Damaged watersheds struggle to retain water in the soil at rates equal to healthy watersheds, leading to higher flood risk and slow vegetation regrowth. Monitoring water quality and watershed health are key pieces of water management as wildfires continue to be a feature of the Colorado climate. Informants often cited poor forest management as a factor in increased wildfire occurrence. Stakeholders expressed that improving forest health could lead to improved water supplies and decreased wildfire risks.
4.4 High resolution and accurate data collection
A common theme throughout the key informant interviews and survey results was the importance of high resolution and accurate data. The greatest barriers identified include acquiring funding for technology implementation, compatibility between new technologies and old systems, and the labor required to implement or maintain technologies. To address technological and data gaps in Colorado water management, accurate, low-cost options are needed. Funding opportunities are needed to aid in implementing technologies that can improve state-wide water management.
Key informants most frequently cited using remotely reporting technology including smart water meters, as well as various types of sensors including pressure sensors and current or voltage sensors. Interviewees were most commonly interested in exploring or implementing unmanned aerial vehicles or drones for surveying and expanding usage of remotely reporting technologies. One key informant stated, “[B]efore we would do surveys on land, but that was more expensive and time consuming. So drones would be useful … and with the sensors come remote access.”
Data used for water management often varies spatially and temporally. When discussing the resolution of data, one interviewee said, “[T]here have been some early efforts to merge the point observations–which are very reliable, very high in information content–with satellite [data], which do not have as much information necessarily, but are spatially continuous.” Amongst water managers, there is a need to fill data gaps spatially to better represent hydrological systems and ultimately aid in water management.
4.5 Data sharing and collaboration
A notable theme that emerged from interview and survey analysis was of community and collaboration. There is a wealth of innovation and research across the state in all the areas addressed above, from water access to wildfires. Better methods are needed to fuel collaboration and share data. Several informants and the survey results touched on the need for improved data visualization platforms to enhance communication between basins and sectors across the state. Across the state, stakeholders agree that the challenges facing water supply management can only be addressed by coming together to find solutions: “[W]hat we need now more than ever is radical collaboration. We’ve got to work together.”
5 Conclusion
Changes in hydrologic systems and the effects of climate change make effective water conservation and management crucial across Colorado and the western United States. Through the utilization of key informant interviews with state-wide water experts and a complementary stakeholder survey, the following themes were explored:
- Identification of monitoring gaps in Colorado water management
- Greatest challenges faced by Colorado water managers across basins and sectors
- Perceptions of technology usage across Colorado and barriers to technology adoption
Considering these themes, qualitative analysis of informant feedback was completed along with statistical analysis of the survey. These illuminated statewide management gaps related to: (1) streamflow forecasting and improved understanding of Colorado snowpack, (2) expanding groundwater and soil moisture monitoring, (3) wildfire impacts on watershed health, (4) improved accuracy and reliability of data sources, and (5) maintaining an emphasis on community collaboration. Challenges faced by to Colorado managers varied by stakeholder basin and sector but were found to include changing hydrology because of extended drought and climate change and impacts of an intensifying wildfire season on water quality and watershed health.
There was strong agreement across sectors and basins that the best way to address these hurdles is to encourage sharing of ideas and solutions across the state. From rural mountain communities to high-desert metropolises, Colorado presents diverse topography and economies across the state. Although the state is experiencing exponential growth overall, some areas remain sparsely populated while others are becoming more dense [33]. These varying situations affect the way water is consumed and managed. Where and how water is sourced also varies in Colorado. Areas with low precipitation might rely heavily on groundwater, while others might only use surface water from the Colorado River or its tributaries. These variations present water management challenges. With this in mind, we investigated perspectives on water monitoring needs and challenges across basins and sectors in Colorado. While not a complete picture, stakeholder interviews allowed a range of voices and expertise to describe the issues facing their communities and the state as a whole.
These findings illustrate the importance of qualitative insight and community input into the problems and solutions facing present-day water managers, decision makers, and citizens of Colorado. This study may influence policy surrounding Colorado water management and fuel future research and innovation on these topics, and it is distinct in its effort to bring together the gaps and potential solutions for statewide water management issues, making it relevant across the western United States.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Amy Javernick-Will and Ben Livneh for their feedback, the key informants who provided invaluable knowledge, and all of those who participated in the survey.
References
- 1. Diffenbaugh N, Swain D, Touma D, Lubchenco J. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015;112(13):3931–3936. pmid:25733875
- 2.
State of Colorado. Water Supply. In: Colorado’s Water Plan. Denver, CO: Colorado Water Conservation Board; 2015.
- 3.
Coombs N, Lopez J, Howell B. Rio Grande Basin Implementation Plan; 2022.
- 4. Fontaine M, Steinemann A, Hayes M. State Drought Programs and Plans: Survey of the Western United States. Natural Hazards Review. 2014;15(1):95–99.
- 5. Josset L, Allaire M, Hayek C, Rising J, Thomas C, Lall U. The U.S. Water Data Gap—A Survey of State[U+2010]Level Water Data Platforms to Inform the Development of a National Water Portal. Earth’s Future. 2019;7(4):433–449.
- 6.
Burstein P. Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Democracy. In: Handbook of Politics. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 63–79.
- 7. Bostrom A, Morgan M, Fischhoff B, Read D. What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models. Risk Analysis. 1994;14(6).
- 8. Johnson E, Tversky A. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;45(1):20–31.
- 9. Godschalk D, Brody S, Burby R. Public Participation in Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy Formation: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2003;46(5):733–754.
- 10.
Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications; 2000.
- 11. Babbitt C, Burbach M, Pennisi L. A mixed-methods approach to assessing success in transitioning water management institutions: a case study of the Platte River Basin, Nebraska. Ecology and Society. 2015;20(1).
- 12. Moore T, Strengers Y, Maller C. Utilising Mixed Methods Research to Inform Low-carbon Social Housing Performance Policy. Urban Policy and Research. 2016;34(3):240–255.
- 13.
Creswell J, Plano C. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2011.
- 14. Wilhite D, Svoboda M, Hayes M. Understanding the complex impacts of drought: A key to enhancing drought mitigation and preparedness. Water Resources Management. 2007;21(5):763–774.
- 15.
Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.; 1998. Available from: http://www.sciepub.com/reference/195510.
- 16. Dai A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3(1):52–58.
- 17. Elmendorf W, Luloff A. Using Key Informant Interviews to Better Understand Open Space Conservation in a Developing Watershed. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 2006;.
- 18. White D, Corley E, White M. Water Managers’ Perceptions of the Science–Policy Interface in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for an Emerging Boundary Organization. 2008;21(3):230–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920701329678
- 19. Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan M, Fischhoff B, Smuts T. What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis. 1994;14(6).
- 20. Taylor J, Stewart T, Downton M. Perceptions of Drought in the Ogallala Aquifer Region. Environment and Behavior. 1988;20(2):150–175.
- 21.
McCracken G. The Long Interview. SAGE Publications, Inc; 1988.
- 22. Krannich RS, Keenan SP, Walker MS, Hardesty DL. Social Implications of Severe Sustained Drought: Case Studies in California and Colorado. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 1995;31(5):851–865.
- 23. Diggs D. Drought Experience and Perception of Climatic Change among Great Plains Farmers. Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Science. 1991;1.
- 24. Woudenberg D, Wilhite D, Hayes M. Perception of drought hazard and its sociological impacts in south-central Nebraska. Great Plains Research. 2008;18(1).
- 25.
Frasier M, Waskom R, Hoag D, Bauder T. Irrigation Management in Colorado: Survey Data and Findings. Fort Collins: Agricultural Experiment Station, Colorado State University; 1998.
- 26. Hamilton L, Keim B. Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. International Journal of Climatology. 2009;29(15):2348–2352.
- 27. Brody S, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H. Examining the Relationship Between Physical Vulnerability and Public Perceptions of Global Climate Change in the United States. Environment and Behavior. 2008;40(1):72–95.
- 28.
De Vellis R. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. vol. 26. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.; 2003.
- 29. Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education. 2004;38(12):1217–1218. pmid:15566531
- 30. Holland M, Demaree K, Thomas E. Data for: Investigating technology opportunities toward improved Colorado water monitoring: Insights from key informant interviews and stakeholder surveys. The Qualitative Data Repository. 2023;.
- 31. Woelders L, Lukas J, Payton L, Duncan B. Snowpack Monitoring in the Rocky Mountain West: A User Guide. Western Water Assessment; 2020.
- 32.
Bexfield L. Conceptual Understanding and Groundwater Quality of the Basin-Fill Aquifer in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico. In: Conceptual Understanding and Groundwater Quality of Selected Basin-Fill Aquifers in the Southwestern United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; 2010. p. 189–214.
- 33.
U S Census Bureau. Colorado Among Fastest-Growing States Last Decade; 2020.