What’s in a Name?

By January 9, 2017UCRWG Updates

Watershed groups come in all shapes and sizes

Moving into this snowy New Year, our fledgling Upper Colorado River Watershed Group is digging deeper into your community input and considering the nuts and bolts of creating a formal watershed group.

Connecting Existing Efforts

Existing efforts are the spokes, UCRWG is the hub.

In our “community conversations” from 2016, the image of a wagon wheel was often used to illustrate how we intend UCRWG to function in the watershed community. We emphasized that UCRWG is a non-competitive group, focused on connecting existing efforts. To learn how best to serve the Upper Colorado community in this fashion, and to consider what “shape” the future UCRWG group, itself, should take, it’s important to understand what’s already out there. In Colorado alone there are already 80+ Watershed Groups in existence, as listed by the Colorado Watershed Assembly (CWA). What can we learn from some of these groups? What lessons can be applied towards efforts in the Colorado headwaters area? We’ll be highlighting some of these groups in coming months, along with some other water folks from out of state and overseas that we believe are doing important and relevant work to this cause.

What’s in a Name?

Starting off, we’re thinking about names. How might organizational structure be reflected in a name? For instance, “Friends of the Fraser River” sounds different than the “Big Thompson River Coalition” or the “Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District.”  (Not making any judgments here — to quote the bard:  “A rose by any other name…”)

We would like your help in narrowing the field for a long-term, official name for our dear “UCRWG” which, alas, does not exactly roll off the tongue. Please take a quick look at the list below of 33 watershed group names-types culled from the CWA member list, and vote for your top 5, or add something of your own:

Join the discussion One Comment

Leave a Reply