Background, Purpose and Limitations:
UER has been researching the potential impacts of nuclear waste storage and
transportation in Clark County for more than a decade. Recently, this effort
was expanded to include the Clark County Monitoring Program. The Program is
designed to develop baseline indicators from which changes or "shocks" to
the economy might be measured. The changes or shocks that are the principal
concern of this effort include the operation of a high-level nuclear waste
repository in Southern Nevada and the transportation of high-level nuclear
waste through populated areas (e.g., the Las Vegas Valley).
Empirical research has shown what common sense would suggest -- the presence
of a nuclear waste repository has the potential to impact surrounding
communities as will the transportation of nuclear waste through populated
areas. These impacts include incremental public safety costs, property value
devaluation, shifts in industrial patterns and countless other economic,
fiscal, social and environmental considerations (positive and negative).
This potential threat is underscored by Federal report findings, which
indicate that multiple accidents are likely to occur during the initial
development and transport period (i.e., the first 24 years of facility
operation). The extent of the impacts is less certain than their existence,
and as such, are the subject of significant study.
Of vital importance to the impact assessment process is the establishment of
baseline values. Changes to the economic landscape, fiscal system
performance and the social environment are ever-present. Without a
consistent historical basis, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
assess the how an exogenous factor (e.g., the commencement of high-level
nuclear waste shipments) impacted the economy. The quantitative,
statistics-based Monitoring Program provides this baseline for performance
measures. It reviews and analyzes hundreds of statistics on (1) economic
performance (e.g., employment growth, unemployment and housing starts); (2)
fiscal performance (e.g., property tax collections and justice system
costs); (3) public health and safety (e.g., the crime rate, fire safety
response times and police officers per 1,000); and (4) social condition
(e.g., income growth, poverty and welfare caseloads). The Monitoring Program
is extensive in its reach, but lacks a key dimension. It reflects, for
example, if more police officers are put on the streets, but not if people
are feeling safer in their homes. It reflects whether housing prices are
above or below national averages, but not if citizens believe homeownership
is an attainable goal. It reflects whether the community is constructing
more lane miles of roads, but not if citizens are findings it easier to get
from home to work each day. Only through a survey of community sentiment
could these important impact-assessment questions be integrated into the
broader Monitoring Program construct.
Perhaps it is appropriate to briefly recapitulate why these data are of
particular importance to Southern Nevada. This reasoning is principally
sourced to the concepts of assessment and mitigation. It is easy to
conceptualize how the transportation of high-level nuclear waste through a
community might negatively impact property values. It is a bit more
difficult to identify the nexus to child welfare programs, homelessness,
flood protection or crime enforcement. In absence of substantial mitigating
funds, it is possible that Nevada's state and local governments might be
required to shift resources away from existing programs and into efforts
aimed at ensuring threats, patent and latent, sourced to storage and
transportation of high-level nuclear waste are addressed. Such a shift away
from existing public services would inherently reduce the quality of life
with the community, and may potentially have far-reaching economic, fiscal
and social implications.
Analyzing this important question requires not only an understanding of
funds allocated to specific programs but also the relative importance and
effectiveness of those programs. This assessment is the cornerstone of the
Community Survey efforts, and the fundamental consideration in its design.
In addition to the considerations outlined above, the Community Survey
serves some additional purposes. Questions intended to gauge the community's
awareness of the Yucca Mountain project and the related public sector
initiatives were added to the survey. Global questions relating to general
economic sentiment were also included. Questions regarding expected
financial situation, for example, will help differentiate between stigmatic
and realized impacts. They will also serve as the leading edge of impact
analysis should a shift (e.g., the commencement of high-level nuclear waste
transportation) were to materialize.
Survey Development and Design:
In its preliminary form, the survey instrument was loosely based on the
Clark County Community Survey(s) conducted in April 2001 and February 2003.
Questions were removed, added, altered an amended based on meetings between
UER and local government representatives conducted during the first four
months of 2005. After an appropriate set of questions was identified, a raw
instrument was forwarded to the professionals at Strategic Solutions.
Strategic made a number of recommendations relating to design and content.
These recommendations were followed with the intent of ensuring the
instrument's validity and appropriateness given its intended purpose.
The final instrument was administered over several days during the month of
June 2005. Six hundred randomly selected Clark County households responded
to the survey. It is those responses that are summarized herein.
Utility of the Findings:
The utility of the inaugural survey is limited because it provides the first
point in a time series. Over time, we will be able to smooth out distortions
and identify trends in the public's attitudes toward public service. For the
time being, the survey will be used to develop a tracking and reporting
structure.
Analysis Limitations:
The Community Survey was designed to accomplish the specific tasks outlined
above. It was not developed or designed to be a comparative diagnostic or a
comprehensive performance assessment. We recognize that the data collected
and analyzed by the Monitoring Program and this Community Survey may serve
secondary purposes. We offer no comment relative to these purposes, noting
only that such actions were beyond the scope of this engagement. |
|
|
|
