Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
EarthFix DHM CWA Sewage Treatment

EarthFix DHM CWA Sewage Treatment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by earthfixteam

More info:

Published by: earthfixteam on Oct 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
239 NW 13
th
Ave., #205Portland, OR 97209503.220.0575www.dhmresearch.com@DHMresearch
1
DHM Research | EarthFix Clean Water Act Survey, July 2012
1.
 
Survey Collaborators
The EarthFix survey collaboration includes local public radio stations in Idaho, Oregon andWashington, and DHM Research.
2.
 
Referencing DHM Research
All website and on-air references as: Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall or DHM Research. DHMResearch is an independent and non-partisan public opinion research and consultation firmbased in Portland, Oregon.
3.
 
Research Methodology
 
This quantitative research involved a statewide online survey of the Northwest’s generalpopulation, age 18+ conducted between July 9 and July 14, 2012. The sample size was1,200. Four hundred respondents were selected from each state (as a stratified versusproportional sample).The data are reported based on the total sample and broken out for each state. The data forthe total sample is weighted to reflect the proportional percentage of population that eachstate contributes to the Northwest. Quotas and weighting techniques standard to researchwere used to assure that the findings reflect the demographics of the population in eachstate.
4.
 
Statement of Limitations
 
Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error, which represents thedifference between a sample of a given population and the total population (here, residentsin the Northwest). For a sample size of 1,200, if the respondents answered 90% one wayand 10% the other, the margin would be +/- 1.7%. If they answered a particular questionin the proportion of 50% each way the margin of error would be +/-2.8%. For the statesample sizes of 400, the 90% and 50% margins of error are +/- 2.9% and +/-4.9%.
1
 In gathering responses, DHM Research employed a variety of quality control measures,including questionnaire pre-testing and monitoring interviews.
EarthFix Clean Water Act SurveyJuly 9 – July 14, 2012; N=1,200 (N=400 ID, OR, WA)Ages 18+ using an online panel of residents10 Minutes; Margin of error +/- 2.8% for Total; +/- 4.9% for StateDHM Research

1
Thereasonforthedifferenceslieinthefactthatwhenresponsecategoriesarerelativelyeveninsize,eachisnumericallysmallerandthusslightlylessable-onastatisticalbasis-toapproximatethelargerpopulation.Theseplus-minuserrormarginsrepresentdifferencesbetweenthesampleandtotalpopulationataconfidenceinterval,orprobability,calculatedtobe95%.Thismeansthatthereisa95%probabilitythatthesampletakenforthisstudywouldfallwithinthestatedmarginsoferrorifcomparedwiththeresultsachievedfromsurveyingtheentirepopulation.
 
 
 
2
DHM Research | EarthFix Clean Water Act Survey, July 2012
Would you be willing to pay more for sewer services if it would improve the quality of yourlocal waterways?
 Response Category
TotalN=1200IdahoN=400OregonN=400WashingtonN=400
No 28% 34% 32% 24%Net Yes 60% 55% 57% 63%Yes: 1-5% more 46% 41% 45% 47%Yes: 6-10% more 11% 9% 9% 12%Yes: 11-20% more 2% 2% 2% 2%Yes: 21% or more 1% 3% 1% 1%Don’t know 12% 12% 11% 13%Here are the some basic types of infrastructure. Knowing that financial resources arelimited, what priority should [state] give to repairing and upgrading each? (Randomizeitems)
Response Category
UrgentpriorityHighpriorityMediumpriorityLowpriorityDon’tknow
Wastewater systems
Total, N=1200 12% 38% 37% 8% 5%Idaho, N=400 11% 34% 33% 14% 8%Oregon, N=400 15% 38% 34% 7% 6%Washington, N=400 11% 38% 40% 7% 4%
Drinking water systems
Total, N=1200 18% 43% 28% 6% 5%Idaho, N=400 22% 38% 26% 8% 6%Oregon, N=400 22% 39% 28% 7% 4%Washington, N=400 15% 46% 29% 6% 4%
Sewers
Total, N=1200 8% 31% 47% 8% 6%Idaho, N=400 7% 29% 43% 13% 9%Oregon, N=400 9% 31% 44% 9% 6%Washington, N=400 8% 32% 49% 6% 5%
Roads and bridges
Total, N=1200 22% 38% 32% 6% 3%Idaho, N=400 15% 35% 37% 9% 4%Oregon, N=400 25% 38% 29% 5% 3%Washington, N=400 22% 38% 32% 5% 3%
Garbage management
Total, N=1200 5% 27% 47% 17% 5%Idaho, N=400 5% 22% 46% 21% 6%
 
 
3
DHM Research | EarthFix Clean Water Act Survey, July 2012
Response Category
UrgentpriorityHighpriorityMediumpriorityLowpriorityDon’tknow
Oregon, N=400 6% 23% 45% 22% 5%Washington, N=400 5% 30% 48% 13% 4%
Electric power grid
Total, N=1200 11% 31% 40% 12% 6%Idaho, N=400 12% 28% 32% 20% 9%Oregon, N=400 10% 29% 43% 11% 7%Washington, N=400 11% 34% 40% 11% 5%
School buildings
Total, N=1200 14% 32% 37% 13% 4%Idaho, N=400 12% 31% 35% 16% 5%Oregon, N=400 16% 36% 34% 10% 4%Washington, N=400 12% 31% 39% 15% 4%In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America’s wastewater infrastructure aD-minus grade. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that as a nationwe are currently spending $13 billion annually to maintain wastewater system, but that ittakes at least $19 billion annually to meet our projected needs. Knowing this, how high of a priority do you believe it should be to upgrade [state’s]wastewater infrastructure? (Urgent priority, high priority, medium priority, low priority,don’t know)
Response Category
TotalN=1200IdahoN=400OregonN=400WashingtonN=400
Urgent priority 14% 12% 19% 12%High priority 49% 45% 44% 52%Medium priority 30% 30% 28% 31%Low priority 4% 6% 4% 4%Don’t know 4% 7% 5% 2%The United States Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1972. It established federalregulations and water quality standards for the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands,and other waterways. A major goal of the Clean Water Act was to stop the dumping of raw sewage into waterways. The vast majority of those discharges have beeneliminated. However, many cities across the Pacific Northwest continue to dump rawsewage in violation of the law.With limited resources, cities have to prioritize how best to prevent and clean up waterpollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is consideringallowing cities that are now dumping raw sewage into waterways more time to halt thepractice so that they can concentrate their efforts on preventing and cleaning up waterpollution caused by stormwater runoff. Raw sewage is a more serious pollutant but it

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->