A poll, whose results were released on Thursday, shows that Davis voters are not only highly aware of the much anticipated ballot measure, but support it by a wide margin.
The survey was conducted December 27-31 by the polling firm of Moore Methods, of Sacramento. It surveyed 300 likely voters.
Yes on Measure I campaign manager Will Arnold told the Vanguard on Thursday that the poll was conducted for the purposes of planning the campaign. The city of Davis, much to the criticism of the Vanguard, had not conducted their own polling on the public policy question, so the campaign filled in the slack.
The campaign followed the advice of the professionals, who believed that the week between Christmas and New Year’s was actually an opportune time to conduct surveys, because a lot of people were home, off from work.
In their release, the campaign attached a January 7, 2013 letter from Jim Moore at J. Moore Methods, Inc., a Sacramento-based Public Opinion Research firm.
He told the campaign that, in interviewing 300 likely mail-ballot special election voters between December 27 and December 31, they found, “Measure I will most likely pass in the rage of 65-75%.”
In addition, they found, “85% of Davis voters have heard of this water plan issue. From what they’ve read or heard, 63% of voters say they support the City’s water plan with 11% opposed.”
They add, “When the official Measure I ballot language is read, 70 % of voters support and 12% oppose Measure I. Support is 75% among Democrats; 60% among Republicans and 67% of Independents.”
They also found that improving local water supplies was a top priority (90%). “63% of residents think City of Davis water quality is fair or poor. 89% of residents either purchase bottled water or have filters or softeners for their drinking water,” the survey found.
“While this poll was conducted solely for the purposes of planning our campaign, we are happy to release the key results to the press and to the public,” said Alan Pryor, co-chair of the Yes on Measure I Committee. “The survey confirms even stronger support than we expected, with 70 percent in favor of the Measure as printed on the ballot. Davis voters have followed the issue closely, understand it well, and a strong majority support the unanimous decision of our City Council to move forward with Woodland on this important project.”
“Our committee is appreciative of Senator Lois Wolk’s effort to initiate the survey and to help fund it, along with the Davis Chamber PAC and the California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of business and labor that supports infrastructure investment in California,” concluded Mr. Pryor.
“While the poll results are encouraging, we plan to carry out a complete and thorough grassroots campaign to make sure all Davis voters understand the measure fully and return their ballots in the mail by March 5th,” added Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza. “We aren’t taking anything for granted.”
“The results are certainly encouraging, but not surprising” said Senator Wolk. “I am hearing in the community an unprecedented consensus, including business and environmental leaders, liberals and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, that we in Davis can indeed work together to make the long-term investment for a cleaner and safer water supply. This is a smart and cost-effective plan that will serve our community for decades to come.
“We have for the first time in decades a city council that is working well together, without acrimony, to hammer out the compromises that make for responsible problem solving governance. It is a sharp contrast to what we see coming out of Congress recently and often, regrettably, our own Legislature.
“I have worked on water issues for over 20 years and this is the most important decision Davis voters have ever been asked to make about our water supply. I will continue to help the Measure I campaign in any way I can,” concluded Senator Wolk.
Michael Harrington, of the No on Measure I campaign, did not respond to the Vanguard‘s email request for a comment on Thursday afternoon.
The No on I campaign has focused on the affordability of the water project. When the Vanguard asked Will Arnold about whether the campaign had asked voters a question on the costs of the project, he declined comment, stating that the campaign would not be making public certain portions of the poll.
The four questions that the campaign did supply show strong support for the project. When asked their opinion of city of Davis groundwater, voters responded 8% Excellent, 29% Good, 39% Fair and 24% Poor.
Mr. Arnold noted that 63% of the voters felt the current water quality was good or poor. He did find it curious that as many as 8% thought the water was excellent, joking that he wanted to meet those people.
85% percent of the respondents described themselves as familiar with the issue of the water supply project.
Of the respondents, 63% supported the project, with that number increasing to 70% once the ballot measure was read to them. The opposition only came in at 11%.
Vanguard note:
The Vanguard has no way to analyze the authenticity of this poll. Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, as mentioned in the article, believes these numbers square with his private conversations.
On the other hand, we believe, based on the public discussions, that the polling finding only 11% opposition seems rather low, given the amount of controversy in the community over the last year. Moreover, despite this discussion, we believe 85% is an extremely large number for people to be familiar with this issue.
We have no way to evaluate whether they are oversampling, based on response rates, people who are already engaged in the process and thus more likely to support the project.
We should keep in mind that this is a campaign-sponsored poll. Without knowing the response to cost issues, it is also hard to evaluate the poll. However, we sense, given the reluctance of the campaign to release or discuss that data, that they may think they are vulnerable there.
Finally, despite the fact that people are going to start voting in just over two weeks, we are still relatively early in the process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I received a call and was polled, it was quite lengthy. I was asked a lot more than just water questions, for ex. they asked you to rate all the council members individually. I felt the way the questions were asked kind of led one in a direction to support the project though I don’t think that was the plan. Being that really not that much has changed in regards to the rates and that 5000 sent in 218 protest letters and about the same amount signed the referendum I find it hard to believe that only 11% are against the project.
Or maybe this is a settled debate with nothing left to do but vote.
Good question Rusty. The 5,000 citizens fell into two broad categories as follows. The question for me is which of those groupings still hold firm to their original position
[b]Group 1 — Those who opposed the JPA Plan outright:[/b]
• Those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis, and that removing access to water makes it very difficult (impossible) for developers to get regulatory approval to build on their land around Davis.
• Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/competence of City of Davis Staff/Council . . . some would even include concerns about fraud.
• Those who as a matter of principle object to any increase on either rates or taxes.
• Those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner subject to non-Davis whims/power plays.
• Those who have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system.
• Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity (due to profit motive) of the private sector Design-Build-Operate (DBO) firms and/or the private sector consultants/experts.
[b]Group Two — Those who were concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet didn’t oppose it in its entirety:[/b]
• Those who feel the process leading to the approval of the plan is 1) proceeding too quickly, and/or 2) lacks sufficient transparency and citizen input. This group typically is not sure that the surface water project is the best alternative, and that perhaps other options are out there that have not been sufficiently explored by the JPA and/or City of Davis staff. Many in this group feel that “a vote of the citizens” is needed.
• Those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.
• Those who have a business in which water is a key component (Sudwerk, swimming clubs, etc.), and see the rate increase as a huge change to their cost of doing business and/or their ability to continue to stay in business.
• Those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally “unfair” and don’t want to think about the JPA plan until the fairness issues in the rate structure are addressed.
• Those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself.
• Those who have serious competitiveness concerns about the DBO bidding process’ structural ability to result in truly competitive vendor bids for one or more of the Design, the Build, and/or the Operate portions of the DBO model.
Yes in Measure X inner circle committee was spotted partying and drinking champagne the night before losing the next day at 40%
Romney wrote only an acceptance speech
Rove argued on air with Fox News about Giving Ohio to Obama the night of the election
Yes on I has not released its questionnaire it full results or methodology
Rusty49 was interviewed and says it was effectively a push poll
Maybe the poll is right, maybe not. We shall see.
David – If the yes campaign will not release some of the data will they at least release the methodology used including any adjustments made? This would answer most of your questions. They should also provide margins of error as is common practice. Even if they want to hold onto some of the content the methodology should be fairly straightforward. Did you ask for it?
Robb: I just felt the need to provide some caveats. I find it improbable that there is only 11% opposition at this point. I also think 85% is way too high for familiarity although I suppose they didn’t probe how deeply they were familiar. Given that, I think we at least need to have a little skepticism. But we’ll see.
I agree on skepticism. I was making a narrow point: ask for the methodology and margins of error. Those are usually very straightforward items and would help answer some questions (or at least allow for hypotheses to be generated about the results).
No on I did a poll too
Shows us ahead 56-44
But you cannot see the poll or methodology
Rusty: “[i]Being that really not that much has changed in regards to the rates and that 5000 sent in 218 protest letters and about the same amount signed the referendum I find it hard to believe that only 11% are against the project.[/i]”
Registered voters in Davis (as of last election) 42,207
5000/42507 = 11.8%
Voter turnout in last election = 32972
5000/32972 = 15.2%
Voter turnout in Measure C election March 2012 = 17219
5000/17219 = 29.0%
No matter how you slice it Rusty, by your measure, the opposition is in the minority.
I don’t believe the vote will be close as I think Davis voters are informed and intelligent enough to make the best long-term decision. In my opinion, the degree of opposition to this project has consistently been inflated.
The press release did include the margin of error for the poll, which is 5.7%.
I will let the questions and answers speak for themselves and leave it to your interpretation whether you believe those questions are “pushing” for specific answers.
What is your opinion of the water quality which the City of Davis provides to its residents – excellent, good, fair or poor ?
EXCELLENT. ………. 8
GOOD. …………… 29
FAIR. …………… 39
POOR. …………… 24
NO OPINION. ……. 0
To supply drinking water in your household, do you …. ? (READ CHOICES)
purchase bottled water. …….. 34
have a water softener. ……… 33
or have a water filter. ……….. 45
OTHER. ………………….. 4
NONE. …………………… 11
In recent years, the issue of building a new water supply facility for Davis has been discussed by the City Council. Are you familiar with this issue ?
YES/FAMILIAR. ………… 85
NO/NOT FAMILIAR. ……… 15
The Davis City Council recently approved a long-term plan to improve City water supplies. From what you’ve heard of this plan, do you support or oppose it ?
SUPPORT. ………… 63 *
OPPOSE. …………. 11 *
NO OPINION. ……. 26
There will be a mail ballot election starting in February of next year. The measure is called Measure I. The official ballot question for Measure I reads as follows:
Shall Ordinance No. 2399 be adopted, which grants permission to the City of Davis to proceed with the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project, to provide surface water as an additional supply of water, subject to the adoption of water rates in accordance with Proposition 218 in the California Constitution ?
After hearing this ballot language, would you likely support or oppose Measure I ?
SUPPORT. ………… 70
OPPOSE. …………. 12
NO OPINION. ……. 18
Mark West
[i]”I don’t believe the vote will be close as I think Davis voters are informed and intelligent enough to make the best long-term decision. In my opinion, the degree of opposition to this project has consistently been inflated.”[/i]
Your comment above is getting into a realm that no polling data will be able to support or refute, but with that said it is useful to look at the differences that exist for not only the 5,000 but also for all Davis voters.
One way to do that is to ask, [i]”How has the WAC engaged the key issues of these citizen groupings?”[/i]
The answer is that the WAC:
1. Did a very thorough job of questioning the sizing of the proposed surface water plant. 12 mgd represents a one-third reduction in Davis’s share of plant capacity and a $30 million reduction in Davis’ share of the estimated costs. The WAC has done a lot and there is more that members of the Council have done to reduce both the total cost and the individual rate payer cost further.
2. Placed a decision of “groundwater only” vs. “conjunctive use” at the very front of the process.
3. Rather than relying on Staff or JPA Consultants for expert scientific, risk and legal information about the Deep Aquifer, the WAC has had numerous thorough presentations from industry experts Graham Fogg, Hydrology professor at UCD, Jay Lund, Chair of the UCD Watershed Science Center, Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Ken Loy from West/Yost, and Kelly Salt and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger.
4. Made a unanimous decision at the 5/10 WAC meeting that A) fully endorsed having a dual source system containing both surface water and groundwater, and B) completely removed from consideration sole reliance on groundwater as the long range water supply for the City.
5. Gave clear direction to Council to place a binding vote on the ballot for the approval or rejection of the Prop 218 water rates that will be published by the City no later than January (hopefully sooner).
6. On 11/13 showed all the citizens of Davis that they were not simply a rubber stamp for the Council
Those steps/accomplishments certainly will not change all of the 5,000 voters’ minds, but it is more than likely fair to say that it changed the minds of a substantial portion, if not a majority, of the 5,000.
Will: you are missing the rates.
Will Arnold, I participated in the poll weeks ago so I’m a little vague on all the questions that were asked. To the best of my recollection, as I had company at the time, there were more water questions (water quality) asked than the ones you listed but I could be wrong. Saying up front that I’m against the project (mostly because of the backbreaking rates), I felt the questions were asked in a way and order that made me feel like I was contradicting myself to say I oppose the project when that question was finally asked.
Michael, while my numbers are not flawless, I’ve taken a look at what the annual revenue requirement would be for the current groundwater-only system if No On Measure I prevails on March 5th. The bottom line is that Measure I is defeated, the current average $34.00 bill will rise to between $82.00 and $84.00 in 2018. That rise is based on the cost of service analysis numbers produced by Bartle Wells. $82 is a 141% increase and $84 is a 147% increase over $34.
For those who are not familiar with Mike’s four part plan it is as follows:
Step One: Study the current system and determine what capital improvements/repairs/replacements need to be undertaken.
Step Two: Fund the items identified in Step One
Step Three: Study the surface water needs and alternatives based on the outcome of Steps One and Two
Step Four: Select and fund the result of Step Four
In WAC meetings, the members of the WAC were provided the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Prepared for City of Davis July 2011 by a Brown and Caldwell team led by Paul Selsky. That assessment is exactly what Michael is looking for in Step One. The $37 million of “Pay As You Go” capital costs that were so actively discussed by Council on Tuesday night are exactly what Michael has requested in Step Two. So the $82 to $84 “average” water bill at the end of the five-year Prop 218 rate period is a good picture of what our rates will be if No On Measure I prevails.
Matt: “[i]So the $82 to $84 “average” water bill at the end of the five-year Prop 218 rate period is a good picture of what our rates will be if No On Measure I prevails.[/i]”
Does this include the costs necessary to upgrade our current system in order to come into compliance with the Clean Water Act? Or the fines expected to accrue starting in 2016 for our failure to comply with the act?
Mark, to the best of my knowledge the simple answer to your two questions is “no” and “no.”
I have been doing a considerable amount of homework on the fines situation, and the “wiggle room” that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has in levying fines makes creating any firm dollar amount for fines speculative at best. So a conservative scenario analysis says that including hard and fast fines amounts is over aggressive forecasting.
With that said, the following article gives us a very tangible example of how the fines can escalate at the RWQCB’s discretion. [url]http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/district-122564-water-plant.html[/url]
Matt: Would not a ‘fair’ comparison need to include the costs of necessary upgrades to our current system in order to come into compliance, regardless of the amount of the potential fines (or even if those fines will ever occur)?
Seems to me that we have no option but to stop polluting the Delta so all comparisons should include the cost of coming into compliance regardless of how we propose doing so.
David:
“However, we sense, given the reluctance of the campaign to release or discuss that data, that they may think they are vulnerable there.”
Why don’t they just release the entire poll (with all the questions in exactly the order they were asked) and let the public decide on it’s objectivity.
Mark, I am not knowledgeable enough at the detail level to be able to say what proportion of the $37 million capital improvements/repairs/replacements address Clean Water Act compliance.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Why don’t they just release the entire poll (with all the questions in exactly the order they were asked) and let the public decide on it’s objectivity.”[/i]
rusty, one possible answer is that the “buzz” about the poll gets extended if you release its contents over time.
That’s just a guess though.
No question that this spurious polling is designed to create the aura of inevitability about the ballot measure passing and thus stifle contributions and on-the-ground volunteers to do door-to-door canvassing. The next 45 days will tell the tale. For myself, this polling “information” only energizes me to support the No campaign with both hours and dollars. As I have said before, Davisites do not take kindly to attempts at making them “suckers”
Do your own poll.
davisite2: [i]No question that this spurious polling is designed to create the aura of inevitability about the ballot measure passing and thus stifle contributions and on-the-ground volunteers to do door-to-door canvassing. The next 45 days will tell the tale. For myself, this polling “information” only energizes me to support the No campaign with both hours and dollars. As I have said before, Davisites do not take kindly to attempts at making them “suckers”[/i]
Did you also feel that way (that it was to create an aura of inevitability, that you were being made a “sucker”) about polls that the school board took in conjunction with proposing school parcel taxes? It seems that those polls called it about right given the final voting results.
wdf1…. I think that Rusty’s comments on his experience are significant. The questions prompt the listener to follow a narrative that leads to the pollster’s position. The reported 85% figure for those who considered themselves well-informed is certainly questionable. We will see what the voters decide when they are presented with an alternative narrative. Do we know how many calls did not result in a cooperative participant? I would venture to guess that this was significant as those who oppose the project would see no value in participating.
D2,
While i enjoy hanging out with you at the Co-Op well while you fill your containers with drinking water, I don’t want to schlepp water in the car myself. I would rather drink it from the tap at home if I could.
Remember this isn’t like a parcel tax that needs 2/3. Yes on I only needs 50%+1. 70% yes to 12% no leaves a lot of room for error. The tell in this election is how few people trust the water coming out of their tap for drinking. This has always been the issue for me; what sort of halogen contaminants will get in our ground water from farming. I don’t trust the well water here, never have and I never will, that is why i will vote yes on I and it seems many others feel the same way and that is why I hope I will be in the majority.
Mr. Toad: Understand your comments above, but do you really trust that Sacramento River water? It’s very dirty, and the intake is immediately downstream from the Colusa Drain, containing large amounts of runoff from ag. The river has large amounts of biologically active toxins that are not tested for by utility providers.
The term “clean water agency” is soooooooo 1984.
So we’re back to the ‘Sacramento River water is dirty’ theme.
Mike, they don’t seem to have a problem with it in L.A.
And don’t forget Reisig just got a big settlement from Walgreens for polluting our groundwater with pharmaceutical waste.
Does anybody know exactly where the Colusa Drain empties into the Sacramento River?
Don: I know Yes on I does not want to talk about that dirty river water, but for us, it’s not “back to.” We believe strongly it’s an issue, and will remain an issue.
The surface plant is too big, too soon, and too expensive. There is a ton of pork in the money the rates would bring in.
We shall see which side wins on March 5.
Much has been taken for granted like the question of Davis saying no to Berryessa water. The idea that the Colusa drain is close to the intake at Conaway may be another of those one of those ex-urban myths.
Sacramento River water. [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SacRiverwaterupdate.pdf[/url]
2010 report. Note: big download, 2.22 MB, pdf file. It’s all been studied.
From the study Don points to (seems pretty clear):
“KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
…..
Source Water Quality
Overall, the Sacramento River provides good quality raw water. The raw water can be treated to meet all drinking water standards using conventional water treatment processes. No persistently present constituents that require special treatment processes have been identified in the river….”
Toad
The intake is not immediately downstream of the Colusa Drain. The drain is miles upstream. Moreover, the Feather River (combined flow of the Feather and Yuba), meets the Sacramento River between the drain and the intake.
More to the point, as Don provided the link, its been studied and the water is good.
Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that:
“We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue.”
??????