You Get What You Push Poll For

By Lloyd G. Carter

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) has trotted out a Field Research Corporation poll taken in November, claiming it shows that an “overwhelming majority” of those surveyed agree “the state has major water problems and must invest [billions of dollars] in its water infrastructure to ensure reliable water now and in future years.”

Adds Mark DiCamillo, senior vice president with Field Research: “You still have a significant majority saying they are concerned about water, even though there are huge concerns about the economy today. There is also a core base of support for investing public dollars in upgrading and expanding the state’s water system through a water bond. That base is about 40 %, with another 22 % that is sympathetic and inclined to feel that way.” Well now, these are some bold claims – are they not? – for a highly controversial $11 billion water bond that will ultimately cost voters statewide some $22 billion, all drawn from the state’s already stressed out general fund, and undoubtedly forcing further layoffs of nurses, firefighters, police, and teachers, and more cutbacks in programs for the disabled, elderly, and poor.

It might be useful to know a few more things about the poll from ACWA, which did not reveal on its website how much it paid Field Research to conduct the poll. The survey taken from November 15 through November 17 targeted 1,000 registered voters in English and Spanish (the poll results don’t say what percentage were Spanish-speaking). It did not clarify if the voters polled were from around the state, or more heavily weighted to the south end of the state. The actual Field Research poll, including all questions, was not released on the ACWA website or the Field website. According to the ACWA website, the first question was: “How concerned are you about California’s water supply – extremely concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned?”

The pie graph supplied by ACWA shows 47 percent of those polled were somewhat concerned, 28 percent were extremely concerned, 23 were not too concerned, and two percent were not concerned at all. Field Research/ACWA lumped together the extremely concerned and the somewhat concerned to conclude 75 percent of those polled “remain concerned about the state’s water supply, although that concern carries less intensity than in past years.”

So what are we to make of these numbers? I personally remain “somewhat concerned” that Iran may develop a nuclear bomb. Does that mean I favor a strategic first strike against Iran to stop them from getting a bomb? Not necessarily. “Somewhat concerned” after all is said and done, is a milquetoast term that lawyers would describe as “somewhat meaningless.” There is undoubtedly a major shift in knowledge and understanding from the “somewhat concerned” to the “extremely concerned,” which includes both water buffaloes and environmentalists.

I remain “extremely concerned” about mismanagement of the state’s water supplies and whether throwing $11 billion after the $15 billion in bond measures we’ve already approved in the last 20 years is a good choice, when it might mean the death of the Delta Estuary. The second poll question in the ACWA/Field survey was: “Even though California has had abundant rains in recent years, we still have major problems with our water system . . . and we need to make major investments to upgrade and modernize our water infrastructure to ensure reliable water now and in future years.” (Note the ellipsis in the sentence above, indicating something was cut out of the sentence. What was it? We don’t know. ACWA and Field Research don’t tell us in the redacted material they released.) RELEASE THE ELLIPSIS!! Fifty percent of those polled “agree[d] strongly” with the second question (significantly, down five percent from a year ago). Of course, the question was completely vague as to WHAT projects would be built, who wins and who loses, and failed to include cost/benefit analyses of these various “upgrades.”

What is most significant, however, about question two is what was left out. There was no mention that the 2012 bond measure, as currently written, is essentially another water grab from the north state by western San Joaquin Valley agribusiness and Southern California developers and that these special interests will benefit far more than the general public. Indeed, I don’t see how Northern California interests or Delta fishery/farming/recreation interests benefit much at all from this bond – a Trojan Horse for the Peripheral Canal - which they and their grandchildren will be paying off for the next 30 years. The third and final question in the poll (Again, the original polling data was not released by either ACWA or Field Research so we don’t know if only three questions were asked or several more were asked that proved embarrassing and didn’t make the press release) was: “A statewide bond to upgrade and expand the state’s water storage and delivery system has been approved by the state Legislature and will appear on the November 2012 election ballot. Even if the water bond proposal were to cost the state billions of dollars, do you think it would be worth it or not worth it to make this investment to ensure that the state has a reliable supply of water now and into the future.”

Now this was where the poll results got interesting. The first two questions were more in the form of a “push poll” where you get the uninformed voter to buy into the premise that we absolutely need to upgrade our water infrastructure statewide and the only real question is HOW we upgrade and how much we spend. Pollsters know very well that most voters go into the ballot box on election day without even having read the ballot arguments on most propositions. They also know that if they put in the question a specific number, $11 billion (or more honestly, $22 billion to pay off the bonds), that support would go down. Better to stay with vague “billions.” Because, c’mon, two billion is “billions” and 22 billion is also “billions.” Believe me, they (the pollsters and the water buffalo spin doctors) discussed whether to leave the question with the vague “billions” instead of stating the ultimate cost is $22 billion. According to the third question results, 16 percent of those polled felt “strongly” it was not worth it to spend billions on water infrastructure, 13 percent said it was “not worth it” but did not feel “strongly” about it, 40 percent felt “strongly” that a multi-billion upgrade was “worth it,” 22 percent thought it was worth it but did not feel strongly about it, and nine percent had no opinion at all. The no opinion response was probably the most honest answer since the average person on the street is virtually clueless about water and could not name the two largest water projects in the state if their life depended on it. As Willard “Mitt” Romney would say, “I’ll betcha $10,000 the next guy we stop on the street will have no idea what the CVP, SWP or BDCP are.”

So I propose that Field Research go back and ask a random 1,000 voters the following questions:

1. Are you willing to see further cuts in the state’s general fund, including layoffs of police, nurses, and firefighters, higher college tuition and closure of programs helping the disabled and poor, in order to finance an $11 billion water bond (that will take $22 billion to repay), aid only the western San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, and possibly collapse the Delta Estuary?

2. Do you want to see 80 percent of the state’s surface (river) water continue to go to agribusiness, often to grow subsidized surplus crops like cotton, and do you want to continue to use 70 percent of domestic (home consumption) water for verdant landscaping in a desert? If so, do you think it’s worth trying more conservation, on the farm, industry, and at home, before shelling out $22 billion for a Rube Goldberg tunnel/canal that will deprive the moribund Delta fishery of millions of acre-feet of fresh water?

3. Even though you agree that SOME water districts in the state need to upgrade their water supplies, do you think each district/city/county/region should handle their own water problems and quit trying to grab the water originating in other watersheds or at the other end of the state?

4. Does the name Owens Valley mean anything to you?

5. Do you know where your water comes from, besides out of your tap?

6. Do you actually know anything at all about water issues and are you qualified to offer an opinion on the merits of the 2012 water bond?

7. Have you read the bond proposition?

You can bet that ACWA won’t bankroll my poll. Now, the water agencies and interests statewide have already won a rhetorical victory once again by getting the water bond named the “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2012” which happens to be the same name of the previous two water bonds, the most recent being the “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010.” Bond proponents are hoping uninformed voters who arrive at their polling place next November, will simply look at the water bond title and conclude “Who can be against safe, clean, reliable water?” Then they wished they had read the ballot measure and the arguments. But, of course, they simply sigh and vote what they want to believe is actually safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

The reality, of course, is that another $11 billion in taxpayer money will be going to fuel more insane growth in the Southern California desert and more cheap water for western San Joaquin Valley “farmers” like billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick of Beverly Hills or Orange County billionaire developer Donald Bren. Nevertheless, the Spin Doctors hired by the water agencies are now trumpeting this bogus, shallow “poll” as proof Californians want to pay for another Hydraulic Brotherhood boondoggle. They have to be nervous that strong support for the bond measure has dropped five percent in the last year. But the band wagon is already underway for this latest Field Poll “scientific” poll.

For example, Rex Hime, CEO of the California Business Properties Association, says the Field Poll proves “not only will California protect its water reliability, we will put thousands of workers to work on an infrastructure project that former Governor Pat Brown started. His son, Gov. Jerry Brown[,] can continue that legacy.” Yeah, that’s the political theme of the season. Any crackpot idea, no matter how harebrained, can be sold by promising “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Hime, in his profuse praise of the Browns and the State Water Project, is apparently not referring to the same State Water Project the rest of us know: The one which had billions in overrun costs and delivers only half the water that Pat Brown promised half a century ago.

Mario Santoya, who was cheerleading for the Westlands Water District during the drought two years ago, and is now “CEO” of the California Latino Water Coalition (the group was formerly headed by comedian Paul Rodriguez) claims passage of the bond will “put tens of thousands of people back to work and help California regain a healthy economy.” Santoya will not tell the media who is funding the California Latino Water Coalition (although critics say the white farmers who undoubtedly fund the Latino coalition can hardly call themselves the “White Farmers Water Coalition).

Richard Lyon, senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association, contends the poll suggests “Californians are well aware of the importance of updating our water supply systems and ensuring viable sources of water for the entire state.” (Tell me again, Richard how massive exports from the Sacramento River north of the Delta will help Eureka!) Lyon, picking up the theme developed by the public relations specialists (water bond means jobs!!!), adds “investing now in our water systems will not only provide a short-term boost by providing thousands of jobs, it will also supply a much needed jolt to our state’s economy.” (A jolt, Richard? A few billion in a state with a $1.9 trillion dollar economy, the world’s eighth largest?)

I predict the more educated voters are, the more support for the bond measure will drop. I say let’s ask some honest poll questions. ACWA also needs to put the actual November poll questions, unredacted, on it’s website. In a related matter, Field Research announced that the Internet “has become [California] voters’ chief source of information about statewide ballot measures.” Forty-four percent of those polled say they now consider the Internet their most important source of information on statewide ballot propositions compared to 41 percent citing television, and 34 percent citing the official voter information guide, followed, in last place, by newspapers at 31 percent. Northern California water bond opponents (90 percent of Northern Californians voted against the 1982 Peripheral Canal water bond), Delta farmers and fishers, major environmental groups, and grassroots enviro groups can all take heart from the fact more voters are going to the internet for information. This makes it much easier to get accurate information to the general public without the expense of massive advertising on television, available only to the very rich and well-heeled.  In other words, the Hydraulic Brotherhood.