THE FIELD POLL THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 AS THE CALIFORNIA POLL BY MERVIN FIELD Field Research Corporation 601 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94108-2814 (415) 392-5763 FAX: (415) 434-2541 EMAIL: fieldpoll@field.com www.field.com/fieldpollonline Release #2501 Release Date: Thursday, February 26, 2015 NEARLY UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT STATE'S WATER SHORTAGE IS SERIOUS. GROWING CONCERN ABOUT ADEQUACY OF THE WATER STORAGE AND SUPPLY FACILITIES. SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPING WATER STORAGE FACILITIES ON GOVERNMENT PARKLANDS AND FOREST RESERVES. IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to revocation if publication or broadcast takes place before release date or if contents are divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time. (ISSN 0195-4520) By Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field Virtually all California voters appear to recognize the gravity of the state's ongoing water shortage. Nearly nineteen out of twenty voters (94%) describe the situation as serious, with 68% saying it is extremely serious. In 1977 when the state was in the midst of another long-term drought, fewer (51%) felt the situation was extremely serious. Just one in ten voters (10%) believe state water storage and supply facilities are more than adequate to meet the needs of California, while more than four times as many (43%) say the state s existing water storage and supply facilities are inadequate. Another 38% think they are just barely adequate. By comparison, in the 1980 s the proportion of Californians who described the state s water storage and supply facilities as inadequate averaged only 24%. The Poll also finds that by a 51% to 38% margin voters support the idea of relaxing government restrictions on developing new water storage and supply facilities on government parklands and forest reserves. On the other hand, voters are divided about the idea of allowing the state to relax environmental regulations protecting fish and the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta as a step in mitigating the effects of the drought. At present, 50% of voters would support relaxing these regulations, but 46% are opposed. In addition, by a 61% to 34% margin, voters continue to favor voluntary cut backs in water use over having the state impose mandatory rationing on users, although the proportion favoring mandatory rationing has increased seven points since last year. These findings come from a Field Poll survey about the state s water situation conducted by telephone among a random sample of 1,241 registered voters in six languages and dialects. Field Research Corporation is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 2 Nearly all voters view that state's water shortage as serious Virtually all voters in California now appear to recognize the seriousness of the state's existing shortage of water. Nearly nineteen out of twenty (94%) describe the water shortage as serious, with 68% saying it is extremely serious. While there is widespread acknowledgment of the seriousness of the water shortage across all regions of the state, concerns are greatest among voters in the Central Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, and other parts of Northern California. During the 1976-77 period California experienced the most severe drought in modern history. In a Field Poll survey conducted during the midst of that drought, half of the public (51%) described the state s water shortage as extremely serious. By comparison, today more Californians view the current water shortage as extremely serious (68%) than did so four decades ago. Table 1 Voter views of the seriousness of the water shortage Extremely serious Somewhat serious Not serious No opinion February 2015 68% 26 5 1 April 2014 60% 28 10 2 March 1977 (drought year) 51% 36 9 4 Region (February 2015) Los Angeles County 63% 27 8 2 Other Southern California 66% 29 4 1 Central Valley 73% 24 2 1 San Francisco Bay Area 74% 22 3 1 Other Northern California* 70% 20 4 6 Note: 1977 poll conducted among California adults. Growing concern that the state's existing water storage and supply facilities are inadequate Only one in ten (10%) Californians now describe the state's existing water storage and supply facilities as more than adequate to meet the needs of the state. More than four times as many (43%) think they are inadequate, while another 38% describe them as just barely adequate. The number of voters who considers state water storage and supply facilities inadequate has nearly doubled from the proportions who felt this way the last two times The Field Poll posed this question in the 1980 s. While there is widespread concern about the adequacy of California's water storage and supply facilities in every region of the state, voters living in Central Valley, the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and other parts of Northern California are more likely to believe they are inadequate.
Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 3 Table 2 How adequate are California's existing water storage and supply facilities to meet the needs of the state More than adequate Just barely adequate Not adequate No opinion February 2015 10% 38 43 9 July 1987 12% 54 26 8 July 1980 17% 47 22 14 Region (February 2015) Los Angeles County 10% 44 37 12 Other Southern California 11% 40 40 9 Central Valley 10% 36 48 6 San Francisco Bay Area 8% 30 50 12 Other Northern California* 9% 28 49 14 Note: 1987 and 1980 measures conducted among California adults. Divided views about bypassing environmental regulations protecting fish and the Bay-Delta region if farmers and residents face shortages One water policy matter that is frequently debated during drought years is whether the state should be allowed to bypass environmental regulations protecting fish and the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin delta regions if residential or agricultural water users face serious shortages. When asked about this, voters in the current survey are divided, with 50% feeling that the state should be allowed to bypass such regulations, while 46% are opposed. These results are similar to previous Field Poll measures on the topic conducted last year and in 1987. There are big differences in voter opinions about this across the major regions of the state. For example, in the Central Valley a 61% majority favors allowing the state to bypass these environmental regulations if farmers and residents face serious shortages. By contrast, voters in the San Francisco Bay Area oppose this idea nearly two to one (64% to 33%).
Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 4 Table 3 Agree/Disagree: In dry years, the state should be allowed to bypass environmental regulation protecting fish and the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta region, if residents or farmers face serious shortages. ** Less than ½ of 1%. Agree Disagree No opinion February 2015 50% 46 4 April 2014 49% 44 7 July 1987 47% 47 6 Region (February 2015) Los Angeles County 49% 47 4 Other Southern California 55% 40 5 Central Valley 61% 38 1 San Francisco Bay Area 33% 64 3 Other Northern California* 57% 43 ** Voluntary cutbacks still preferred over mandatory rationing Six in ten (61%) Californians favor the state s current policy of asking Californians to voluntarily cut back on their water use by twenty percent rather than imposing mandatory rationing (34%) as a way of dealing with the current drought, although the proportion supporting mandatory rationing has increased by seven points since last year. While majorities of voters in all regions favor voluntary cutbacks over mandatory rationing, support for voluntary cutbacks is highest among voters in Southern California outside of Los Angeles County (67%) and lower among voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (55%).
Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 5 Table 4 Should the state and other major water providers require mandatory water rationing or ask users to voluntarily cut back water use by 20% Voluntary cutbacks Mandatory rationing No opinion February 2015 61% 34 5 April 2014 67% 27 6 Region Los Angeles County 59% 35 6 Other Southern California 67% 31 2 Central Valley 63% 34 3 San Francisco Bay Area 55% 39 6 Other Northern California* 60% 37 3 Support for developing new water storage and supply facilities on government parklands and forest reserves A 51% majority of voters would support the idea of relaxing government restrictions on the development of new water storage and supply facilities in government parklands and forest reserves. This compares to 38% who disagree with taking such a step. Support is strongest among voters in the Central Valley (58%) and in areas of Southern California outside of Los Angeles County (55%). Table 5 Agree/Disagree: Current government restrictions prohibiting the development of new water storage and supply facilities on government parklands and forest reserves should be relaxed. Agree Disagree No opinion February 2015 51% 38 11 Region Los Angeles County 49% 42 9 Other Southern California 55% 37 8 Central Valley 58% 30 12 San Francisco Bay Area 40% 44 16 Other Northern California* 48% 34 18 30
Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 6 Information About The Survey Methodological Details The findings in this report are based on a Field Poll completed January 26-February 16, 2015 among 1,241 registered voters in California. Interviews were administered by telephone using live interviewers in English, Spanish, Cantonese, Korean, Mandarin and Vietnamese. In order to cover a broad range of issues and minimize voter fatigue, some of the questions are based on random subsamples of either 521 or 602 registered voters. The survey included supplemental interviews among the state's rapidly growly Asian American voter populations with funding provided by Professor Karthick Ramakrishnan of the University of California, Riverside as part of the National Asian American Survey project. Individual voters were sampled at random from listings derived from the statewide voter registration rolls. The supplemental sample of Asian Americans was developed from voter listings targeting Chinese Americans, Vietnamese Americans and Korean Americans in California based primarily on their ethnic surnames. Once a voter's name and telephone number had been selected, interviews were attempted with voters on their landline or cell phone depending on the source of the listing from the voter file and the preference of the voter. Up to six attempts were made to reach, screen and interview each randomly selected voter on different days and times of day during the interviewing period. After the completion of interviewing, the sample was weighted to align it to the proper distribution of voters by race/ethnicity and other demographic, geographic and party registration characteristics of the state's registered voter population. Sampling error estimates applicable to the results of any probability-based survey depend on sample size and the percentage distributions being examined. The maximum sampling error for results from the overall registered voter sample is +/- 3.2 percentage points, while the maximum sampling error for findings from the random subsample is +/- 4.1 percentage points. These estimates are based on survey findings in the middle of the sampling distribution (i.e., results at or near 50%). Percentages at or near either end of the tail of the distributions (i.e., results closer to 10% or 90%) have somewhat smaller margins of error. There are other potential sources of error in surveys of public opinion besides sampling error. However, the overall design and execution of this survey sought to minimize these other possible errors. The Field Poll was established in 1947 as The California Poll by Mervin Field, who is still an active advisor. The Poll has operated continuously since then as an independent, non-partisan survey of California public opinion. The Field Poll receives financial support from leading California media properties, the University of California and California State University systems, who receive the data files from each Field Poll survey shortly after its completion for teaching and secondary research purposes, as well as from foundations, non-profit organizations, and others as part of the Poll's policy research sponsor program. Questions Asked (ASKED OF THE OVERALL SAMPLE OF 1,241 REGISTERED VOTERS) How serious of a water shortage do you think California has at present an extremely serious shortage, a somewhat serious shortage or a not too serious shortage? (ASKED OF A RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF 602 REGISTERED VOTERS) Overall Governor Brown and most major water providers in the state are calling for Californians to voluntarily cut back the amount of water they use by 20%. Others are calling for mandatory water rationing with fines or steep penalties for those who do not conserve. Which policy do you favor the state and other major water providers to be taking at this time voluntary cutbacks or mandatory water rationing? Overall, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: In dry years, the state should be allowed to bypass environmental regulations protecting fish in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region if residents or farmers face serious shortages. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat or disagree strongly? (ASKED OF A RANDOM SUBSAMPLE OF 521 REGISTERED VOTERS) How adequate do you feel our existing water storage and supply facilities are to meet all the various needs in the state today? Would you say present facilities are more than adequate, just barely adequate, not quite adequate or not at all adequate?* Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Current government restrictions prohibiting the development of new water storage and supply facilities on government parklands and forest reserves should be relaxed. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat or disagree strongly?* * These two questions were asked of voters interviewed during the final two weeks of data collection only.