Technical Reports Document Library

Note:  This study is included for historical value but has been replaced by more recent plans.

The Trans-Texas Water Program is a cooperative effort among Texas’ local, regional and state water resource agencies. The overall goal of the Trans-Texas Water Program is to identify the most cost-effective and environmentally sound strategies for meeting water needs both now and for the next 50 years throughout Texas. Central to the Trans-Texas Program is a commitment to involving the public and other stakeholders in water planning efforts.

This public issues survey is part of the public participation process for the 33 county Trans-Texas West Central study area (see map, Appendix A). It is overseen by the Policy Management Committee (PMC), which is made up of various local, regional, and state agencies concerned with water planning. This survey is a major component of Task 3, Public Process Strategy Formulation, where input from the public and stakeholders is being gathered. It helps meet the PMC’s commitment to its Principles of Participation which state that “no present or long-term water strategy can be implemented without the general support and consent of the public and stakeholders …

The goals of this survey were to:

• Establish a baseline of the public’s awareness, attitudes, and concerns about water issues, against which any changes can be measured

• Inform our public/stakeholder involvement efforts by obtaining insights on such questions as “what information do citizens need?” and “who do citizens trust to tell them about water issues?”

Dethman & Associates designed the telephone survey instrument, managed the survey process, and wrote the report. ProMark Research, a San Antonio public opinion research firm, fielded the survey, translated responses into computer readable form, and provided the data tables upon which this report is based. ProMark conducted the survey in accordance with the statistical standards and methods established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (“CASRO”).

Interviews were completed with a representative sample of 500 randomly selected households in the study area; this sample size is very reliable, and carries with it a + or – 4.5%, margin of error in 95 samples out of 100. The survey was pre-tested and fielded during April 1996. …

Key Findings

Water Supply and Quality

• Two-thirds of residents in the study area were concerned their communities will face significant water shortages within the next five years, even though only half of all residents had actually experienced a drought.

Still, a significant portion of residents (33%) said they were not concerned about water shortages.

When asked why they were concerned about shortages, residents cited dwindling resources, no alternative supplies, the likelihood of droughts, and growth in their communities. Those less concerned felt that supplies are adequate or that their communities have good water management practices.

• Living through a drought, and feeling informed about water issues, were likely to make people more concerned about future water supplies.

• When asked if they were more concerned about having enough water or about the quality of their water, respondents were more likely to say they were concerned about water supply (56%) than water quality (32%).

Planning for Future Water Supplies

• Overall, both urban and rural areas received high overall ratings for managing their water resources (over 65% agreed cities and rural areas are doing a good job). And, both urban and rural residents held similar views of city water management efforts (75%, of both groups thought cities were doing a good job).

• Urban and rural residents, however, rated rural water management efforts differently: 58% of urban residents, compared to 81 % of rural reSidents, thought rural areas were doing a good job managing water resources.

• Conservation was most often mentioned as the single most important thing to do to ensure water for the future. Conservation was the most well known supply option and the most supported – far ahead of any other option.

• Residents appeared to support the concept of transferring water “in theory”: 84% agreed that areas of Texas with water surpluses should be willing to share their water with areas of Texas that need water, at least temporarily. However, residents were less supportive of a prerequisite for water transfer – regional planning (68% agreed). Just over half of respondents did not know about water transfer; of those who did, more were negative (37%) than positive (27%) about it.

• Residents chose having a reliable supply as the highest priority, followed closely by water quality but more distantly by keeping the cost of water low, suggesting residents may feel more flexible about cost than about either reliability or quality. Residents thought environmental protection is also important to consider in choosing water supply options.

Making 

Note:  This study is included for historical value but has been replaced by more recent plans.

The Trans-Texas Water Program is a cooperative effort among Texas’ local, regional and state water resource agencies. The overall goal of the Trans-Texas Water Program is to identify the most cost-effective and environmentally sound strategies for meeting water needs both now and for the next 50 years throughout Texas. Central to the Trans-Texas Program is a commitment to involving the public and other stakeholders in water planning efforts.

This public issues survey is part of the public participation process for the 33 county Trans-Texas West Central study area (see map, Appendix A). It is overseen by the Policy Management Committee (PMC), which is made up of various local, regional, and state agencies concerned with water planning. This survey is a major component of Task 3, Public Process Strategy Formulation, where input from the public and stakeholders is being gathered. It helps meet the PMC’s commitment to its Principles of Participation which state that “no present or long-term water strategy can be implemented without the general support and consent of the public and stakeholders …

The goals of this survey were to:

• Establish a baseline of the public’s awareness, attitudes, and concerns about water issues, against which any changes can be measured

• Inform our public/stakeholder involvement efforts by obtaining insights on such questions as “what information do citizens need?” and “who do citizens trust to tell them about water issues?”

Dethman & Associates designed the telephone survey instrument, managed the survey process, and wrote the report. ProMark Research, a San Antonio public opinion research firm, fielded the survey, translated responses into computer readable form, and provided the data tables upon which this report is based. ProMark conducted the survey in accordance with the statistical standards and methods established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (“CASRO”).

Interviews were completed with a representative sample of 500 randomly selected households in the study area; this sample size is very reliable, and carries with it a + or – 4.5%, margin of error in 95 samples out of 100. The survey was pre-tested and fielded during April 1996. …

Key Findings

Water Supply and Quality

• Two-thirds of residents in the study area were concerned their communities will face significant water shortages within the next five years, even though only half of all residents had actually experienced a drought.

Still, a significant portion of residents (33%) said they were not concerned about water shortages.

When asked why they were concerned about shortages, residents cited dwindling resources, no alternative supplies, the likelihood of droughts, and growth in their communities. Those less concerned felt that supplies are adequate or that their communities have good water management practices.

• Living through a drought, and feeling informed about water issues, were likely to make people more concerned about future water supplies.

• When asked if they were more concerned about having enough water or about the quality of their water, respondents were more likely to say they were concerned about water supply (56%) than water quality (32%).

Planning for Future Water Supplies

• Overall, both urban and rural areas received high overall ratings for managing their water resources (over 65% agreed cities and rural areas are doing a good job). And, both urban and rural residents held similar views of city water management efforts (75%, of both groups thought cities were doing a good job).

• Urban and rural residents, however, rated rural water management efforts differently: 58% of urban residents, compared to 81 % of rural reSidents, thought rural areas were doing a good job managing water resources.

• Conservation was most often mentioned as the single most important thing to do to ensure water for the future. Conservation was the most well known supply option and the most supported – far ahead of any other option.

• Residents appeared to support the concept of transferring water “in theory”: 84% agreed that areas of Texas with water surpluses should be willing to share their water with areas of Texas that need water, at least temporarily. However, residents were less supportive of a prerequisite for water transfer – regional planning (68% agreed). Just over half of respondents did not know about water transfer; of those who did, more were negative (37%) than positive (27%) about it.

• Residents chose having a reliable supply as the highest priority, followed closely by water quality but more distantly by keeping the cost of water low, suggesting residents may feel more flexible about cost than about either reliability or quality. Residents thought environmental protection is also important to consider in choosing water supply options.

Making Decisions

• Three-quarters of residents in the study area strongly agreed that elected and water utility officials should involve the public in water planning issues.

• Residents most frequently said they trusted elected local/state officials (31%) and water officials (21%) to make decisions about meeting future water needs in their area. Still, 10% trusted nobody to make these decisions, and 22% didn’t know who to trust.

• Two-thirds of residents said they felt either very (17%) or somewhat informed (52%) about water issues facing their community. Still, one-third said they do not feel informed. Residents said they wanted more information on water management and supply alternatives.  When seeking reliable information on water issues, 76% of residents said they would turn to either the local water utility/department, City or County Government, Water Districts or Authorities, or State Government. About one-fifth of residents (21 %) said they were likely to attend a local meeting on local water issues.

• Newspapers, television, radio and mail were voted the best ways to announce such meetings.

• Sixty-five percent of survey respondents want to be added to a mailing list to notify them of meetings or inform them about water planning issues in their area.

Implications for Water Planning and Public Participation

These survey data suggest several important factors which need to be considered for water planning overall within the Trans-Texas project, and for public participation activities in particular.

1. The needs, experiences, and views of citizens about water issues within the West Central study area vary greatly. For instance, urban residents often have different views on water issues than rural ones, and those who have been through a drought think about water supplies differently than those who have never experienced a shortage. Under these circumstances, a ·cookie cutter” approach to public participation is unlikely to work effectively. In addition, reaching consensus about the best options will require a strong understanding of, and effectively listening to, the variety of viewpoints. Finally, great effort will need to be made to gather and hear from the many viewpoints.

2. Aside from conservation, many citizens are not familiar with various water supply options, much less knowledgeable about them. Only a small portion of the citizenry said they really understand the water issues facing their communities. Thus, tremendous efforts will need to be made to inform the public about water options and issues in a clear, understandable, non-technical format. Citizens will not be able to effectively participate in decision-making unless they become more informed.

3. Study area residents are concerned about water issues and want more Information. The response to a variety of survey questions indicates people will attend to water issues and recognize there are challenges ahead. Fortunately, at this point, most citizens (76%) said they trusted representatives of state and local governments, water utilities, and water authorities (such as the Trans-Texas sponsors) to provide them with reliable information.

4. Respondents named the study sponsors, more than they named any other groups or individuals, as the entities they would trust for guidance and for making decisions about their water futures. Just over half (53%) said they trusted state and local officials and water officials to make decisions. However, they definitely wanted to be involved in the planning process (76% strongly agreed the public should be involved in water planning).