It is no surprise that a poll conducted by the Sewage Treatment Action Group produced results that do not appear to favour the Capital Regional District’s sewage-treatment plan. The surprise is that the group would use such a shoddy method to further its cause.
The group says its survey, conducted by phone on April 2 and April 9, shows the majority of respondents are concerned about the sewage plan, have lost confidence in the CRD and want an independent review of the plan.
Maybe, maybe not. The results did not come from a scientific poll aimed at gauging public opinion, but from a campaign aimed at eliciting a particular response. In the group’s own words, gleaned from its website, the telephone survey was conducted “to raise awareness about the limitations of secondary treatment.”
The survey was conducted not by a professional polling organization, but by Popular Change, a Victoria company that, according to its website, offers “experienced planning and managing both voter-driven and media-driven campaigns using modern techniques and project management.” That is not to fault the company — it was doing what it was hired to do — but it is disingenuous of the Sewage Treatment Action Group to try to portray the survey as a legitimate poll.
A poll should start from a neutral point, rather than trying to colour the responses with loaded questions. Yet the survey’s introduction tells respondents the call is on behalf of the organization that is “very concerned about the CRD sewage treatment project.”
The automated survey purports to ask “two quick questions because we are concerned that the CRD sewage project will continue to flush toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals into the ocean even after secondary treatment.”
“If you are concerned about the sewage project, press 2,” goes the dialogue. “If you are not concerned, press 3.”
The responses are useless, because “concerned” could mean almost anything. And pushing 3 ends the survey, leaving no room for further negative responses.
The so-called Question 2 asks respondents to respond to four statements with no opportunity for dissenting opinions: “If you think there should be an independent review of the CRD plan, press 1. If you believe we should take the time to develop an innovative plan, press 2. If you have lost confidence in the CRD’s ability to manage our region’s waste, press 3. To choose all of the above, press 4.”
It would have been useful had the survey asked: “Do you favour discharging sewage into the ocean? Do you favour land-based secondary treatment? Do you favour another option?”
Not all opponents of the CRD’s sewage plan want to see sewage dumped into the ocean. Some want the CRD to explore other options. Many favour land-based sewage treatment, but are concerned about the particular method planned for the region. Others favour secondary treatment, but don’t like where the CRD plans to build the components.
It’s a complex issue, not easily defined by “yes” or “no” answers to clear questions, but the sewage action group survey didn’t even provide that opportunity. The group claims to have science on its side, then weakens its own cause by using such a blatantly unscientific strategy.
Emotional reactions to the sewage issue are not irrelevant. Some people have a bad feeling about dumping sewage in the ocean. Others don’t like the idea of a sewage plant greeting visitors at the harbour entrance as they arrive by sea. And who can fault Esquimalt residents for being upset when they were faced with the prospect of having a biosolids plant built in their neighbourhood?
It’s a tangled, complicated issue but the action group’s sham poll, rather than clarifying anything, only muddies the waters.
