Community Survey Concerns Raise Questions of Fairness

The County’s action to include the community survey as one of the primary reasons for eliminating STEP/STEG and additional collection component options was heavily debated by several members of the Los Osos community during public comment at the April 7 meeting. Supervisor Bruce Gibson would later conclude the meeting by imposing limitations of discussing and debating STEP/STEG. As the reason for silencing the opposition to STEP/STEG, Gibson cited what he called “overwhelming” community support for Gravity – regardless of widespread economic and social impacts – as shown in the survey results.

Out of a total of 8,167 mailed questionnaire forms that were sent on February 18th, 2,771 (34% of the total amount of forms sent) were returned and tallied. Out of the 2,771 questionnaire forms returned, 69% of respondents definitely or probably would prefer a gravity collection system. Approximately 1,912 respondents out of a total of 8,167 questionnaires sent to residents favored gravity. Only 23% of the total amount of questionnaires sent preferred gravity.

"The overwhelming reality is that the response to that question was overwhelming in one direction (for gravity). It was not a close call,” said Gibson, despite the community’s response to gravity being statistically lackluster, though a valid sample number.

Board of Supervisor directors Adam Hill, Frank Mecham and James Patterson discussed concerns with Gibson over question #17 on the survey, which read:

“Two different collection systems are being considered: ‘hybrid’ gravity system and a STEP/STEG system. The Project team has found both options to be technically viable for Los Osos. A Project peer review by the National Water Research Institute also found the two systems are ‘functionally equivalent.’ However, the Draft EIR has determined that a gravity system has slightly less environmental impacts than STEP/STEG. A gravity system will also be less disruptive to individual properties and have less initial out of pocket costs for property owners, because it does not require the installation of new septic tanks in front yards, nor upgrading of your electrical panels. A STEP/STEG system might result in a lower overall project cost for property owners and residents but that is uncertain, especially considering the time required to design a new collection system and that further delays could jeopardize grant funding. Which system do you prefer?”

The questionnaire packet that was sent did not include the NWRI peer review or the Draft EIR analysis. Instead, Opinion Studies, the San Luis Obispo-based research group hired by the County to put together the survey for them, projected their own analysis.

Question #17 showed the benefits of gravity collection and expressed only concerns of uncertainty for STEP/STEG. There was no analysis or rebuttal in defense of STEP/STEG, thus raising questions regarding the legitimacy of the County’s promised due diligence review of the two collection components.

“I believe the specific [survey] question in mind laid out the facts and basically let people decide on a set of true statements,” said Gibson.

On page 18, Section 3 of the County’s “Final Community Survey Results” document, after delivering the results found in question #17, Opinion Studies concludes, “This is a clear mandate for decision makers to move forward with plans for a gravity-based system.”

During public comment at the April 7th meeting, Los Osos resident Michael Jones claimed that the survey is the embodiment of a political campaign technique called the push poll. The survey questions presented are designed to convince the respondent that they are participating in a questionnaire when the true objective is to modify and influence the views of the respondent.

The partiality shown in the community survey is one of many stumbling blocks toward the fairness that was once touted as the mission of the County process.