CALIFORNIA OIL SPILL STUDY
FOCUS GROUP V
IRVINE
09/12/91
CALIFORNIA OIL SPILLS PROJECT
Focus Group V1
September 12, 1991
Irvine
Moderator: Robert C. Mitchell
RM: Welcome to a focus group. How many of you have participated in a focus group before?
No? Well, a focus group is like a group interview in which I get the opportunity to have you discuss certain
topics that are important to me for a study that I'm conducting. My name is Robert Mitchell. I'm a
sociologist. I'm working with a team of researchers; most of us teach at California universities. I don't.
I come from the east coast. We're doing a study for the state of California, and we're getting people's
views of the priority the state should set for certain kinds of problems that the state is facing at the present
time. We're conducting groups on a number of different topics, and the topic that this group will discuss
is oil spills. So, that's what we'll spend the next two hours discussing in various ways.
But before we begin the discussion, I would like to say a few things about how a focus group is run.
The most important thing about a focus group is to have the people like yourselves who participate give
as frank an opinion as possible. I have absolutely no vested interest in any answer you might give to the
questions that we'll be discussing, but what I do have an interest in is learning how people like you think,
how you react to certain to things that we'll talk about, and your frank opinion will be extremely helpful.
That's the whole point of bringing you here. Second thing is that a focus group gives a chance for all the
researchers in the team in a sense to look over my shoulder. Behind that mirror are my colleagues who are
watching the group. If they were sitting in the room, it would be very intrusive. This kind of setting is very
useful and it also gives us a chance to make a video tape of the group. When I run the group, I'm thinking
often about what questions I'm going to ask next, or how to guide the discussion, and it's very helpful for
me to look at this tape later, and to contemplate the way you were talking about things, to get new insights
from what has gone on. Your last names will not be associated with any of the materials that we use, and
1
This transcript was edited by Robert Mitchell (10/12/17/91) for ease of comprehension
only. The unedited version of the transcript is available.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
1
the materials will only be used for research purposes. Finally, in front of you is a packet of papers. I'd like
you to not look ahead, which is the natural thing to do, until I ask you to turn the pages. You'll be writing
on the top sheet, and then inside are different things that you'll look at as we go along.
As I mentioned, the topic of the group is oil spills and for each of these different kinds of problems
that we're dealing with, we're developing a questionnaire that we can then use to interview people in the
state about the particular issue. And this is not your usual type of questionnaire, where somebody calls you
up from the Field Poll and asks you about 53 different topics in the space of 15 minutes. The interview that
we'll do for each of these problems concentrates only, or for the most part, just on that problem. It aims
to give people information about the problem and an opportunity to make choices about the problem; in
a sense to tell the State what they would like the State to do; what their own opinion is after they've heard
the kind of information I'll be presenting. So it's an unusual kind of interview, and it's a very hard interview
to write the questionnaire for, because It has to convey a lot of information. I can't convey too much
information because people will get tired and bored and it's worthless. On the other hand, I need to convey
the information that people really will want to have in the interview, because in an interview like this,
interviewers can't make up things as they go along. They can only read what you write, so ... and I want
the language to be clear, so the people really understand it, and it's very hard to do. Something that makes
sense to me may not make sense to Heston. And something that makes sense to Heston may not make
sense to Debbie, and I have to find a common language and a way of expressing this. It's a very
challenging task and basically I'd like your help in this. The help that I want is for you to follow along as
I read the draft of the questionnaire. At various points during this we'll discuss the topics that I raise, and
I'll answer questions you might have. I'll ask you for your opinion about different issues that the
questionnaire raises.
I'll pretend that I'm interviewing Judy, so you can get a sense of what actually happens in a survey.
The interviewer will knock on Judy's door, and Judy would be kind enough to agree to the interview after
the interviewer identified him or herself as saying this was coming from the survey center at Berkeley or
some place like that. What I will read is exactly the wording we have at this point. It opens with some
general questions, and then it gets into the issues of oil spills and the choices that the state has to make. All
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
2
right. So, Judy, and if you would just answer these questions as if you were being interviewed.
[Let's talk for a moment about 5 issues that may or may not be of concern to people of
California, like you in years ahead. I will read you the list of issues. If the number 1 means
not at all concerned, and the number 10 means extremely concerned, what number
between 1 and 10 best describes how concerned you personally are about each issue
when you think of the future of California. Education and primary and secondary schools.
How concerned are you about this issue when you think about the future of California?]
JUDY: 10.
RM: Oil spills along the coast. Be honest.
JUDY: I know this is going to be 10 all the way through.
RM: Oh really.
JUDY: 10.
RM: If that's your opinion, that's fine. And of course, people at this stage of the interview would
not know that it's going to focus on oil spills. So the idea is probably a mix of issues, is to get a sense of
their reactions spontaneously before we get into the real topic because in an interview, people often want
to please the interviewer or show that they're cooperative and we try to design the interview to avoid that.
[The water supply in California.]
JUDY: 8.
RM: [Air pollution in the cities.]
JUDY: 8.
RM: Okay, [traffic congestion]?
JUDY: 7.
RM: Okay. All right. Any suggestions on how this question might be better worded, made more
clear ...
MAN: Is the same explanation going to be given to these interviewees about what the real
interview is. What the purpose is, as far as setting priorities or whatever?
RM: No, but it will become clear to them as we go along what the purpose or what the task is.
At the beginning, well, yeah, I think I will probably keep it plain like this. All right, then I would go on.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
3
[The state of California has many demands on it for new programs. For everything from
improving education to building highways. Since each new program costs taxpayers
additional money, it is important to see if citizens are willing to pay for such programs or
not. In this survey, I will ask you about a program that has been proposed to prevent
certain types of damage of medium to large oil spills in California.]
Any comments or ...?
MAN: Can you read that over again?
RM: Okay, it didn't seem ....
[The state of California has many demands on it for new programs for everything from
improving education to building highways. Since each new program costs taxpayers
additional money, it is important to see if citizens are willing to pay for such programs or
not. In this survey, I'll ask you about a program that has been proposed to prevent certain
types of damage form medium to large oil spills in California.]
Is the wording unclear?
MAN: No, I wasn't paying attention the first time.
WOMAN: Do you think you might be able to take that tax and put it somewhere further on in this
interview, since we have just had a considerable raise in taxes, and the word new tax is not pleasant.
RM: And people may react ... in fact I want them to ... I want to be up front about taxes because
the purpose of the interview is to get people realistically to judge this program in the light of what it would
actually cost them. If people don't want to pay for it, then so be it, but it's intended to be as realistic as
possible.
WOMAN: Well, the timing of it is very important. I mean, as far as whether they're willing to pay
for it or not. After you've just been socked with a big sales tax, you're not quite that inclined for the
environment or anything else for a little bit.
RM: No, I think that's very true.
MAN: There's no reference to who is proposing the program. Is that intentional? ... the legislature
or ...
RM: That's a good point. I'm not quite sure whether that comes out later on in the survey. Would
that make a difference to you?
MAN: Absolutely.
RM And how would it make a difference?
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
4
MAN: Depending on who it is, I would be biased for or against it, most likely against it. The tax
levies in the legislature.
RM: Later on, I'll describe how the plan will be implemented and it will be clear then, just the
sponsorship, but keep your concern in mind, and let's see how it runs. Okay. Now I'm going to ask you
a question.
[Have you ever taken part in a survey like this where the state sought your views on a
particular problem?]
JUDY: In a survey like this, no, no.
RM: [A little later, I will tell you what kinds of spills the program would prevent and how
much the program would cost your household. First I need to give you some important
background information. As you may know, California already imposes strict regulations
on oil companies that transport oil on or near the water. It is hard to prevent spills of very
small amounts of oil, but such spills only cause very short-lived minor amounts of damage.
California regulations do, however, prevent almost all spills that involve 10,000 gallons of
oil or more. Spills this large can cause significant amounts of damage. If a spill does
occur, the state requires the company responsible for the spill to pay the cost of cleaning
it up.]
Okay. Any comments or questions about this?
MARK: Read the sentence about regulations already prevent ...
RM: Yes. California regulations do, however, prevent ...
MARK: Regulations don't prevent anything. They punish something that happens. We have laws
against murder. Laws against (inaudible).
RM: That's quite true. But actually these regulations impose restrictions on the oil companies and
how oil is transported that intend to minimize the risk of an accident, and in truth, if we didn't have
regulations we have now, there would be a lot more accidents than there are, so it's in that sense it's
intended ... Other reactions to that section? Basically I'm trying to describe what the present situation is.
All right.
Now, if you would turn in your booklets to the first page with writing on it. In a real interview, I
would hand Judy a card with this information on it (card A). Just a little ... yes, turn it to the first page with
writing. It's the third page. All right. So this is intended to give the person something to look at. I would
say there are three types of shoreline that have been affected by past spills. Then I would say, and at this
stage, each of you should look at these photographs. Take the clip off and just put the photographs in front
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
5
of you. We may not have enough sets, so possibly someone would have to share. The first photographs
I would give Judy probably would be mounted on a piece of cardboard, but they would be these top two.
So, I'd say:
[There are three types of shoreline that have been affected by past spills. The first is sandy
beaches. These photographs show some California beaches, and then I'd say the second
is rocky shoreline, and then the next two photographs would be shown. These
photographs show rocky shoreline.]
Then after letting her look at the photographs, I would go on to say.
[The third type of shoreline is salt water, marshy areas. These salt water marshes are
located in bays or at the mouths of rivers.]
And that's the way I'm introducing these three types of shoreline. Is the description clear enough? Are the
three types ....
MAN: The description is ... but the word on here, the wetland ...
RM: Oh, sorry, that's from a previous version. We did an earlier group, and it turned out that
wetlands was not a word that many people felt comfortable with.
MAN: Especially with the current controversy.
RM: Whereas marshes, saltwater marshes, as best as we could determine was a way of explaining
that type of habitat that people could understand better. So sandy beaches, rocky shoreline, and salt water
marshy areas. Salt water marshy areas, do you think that'll make sense to most people?
MAN: With the picture.
RM: Has everyone actually seen marshy areas like this? Debbie, you're not quite sure?
DEBBIE: Trying to remember where. I've seen them, you know, I don't know if it's been on T.V.
or if I've actually been to them, but I know I've seen some areas like that.
WOMAN: Isn't that what's down off of PCH in Huntington Beach?
RM: Well, here's where my coming from the east coast makes it difficult.
MAN: (inaudible) cross over on the blvd. around 5.
RM: These pictures were actually taken in California. Helene, have you seen areas like this?
HELENE: Well, I was born in California, and I've been up and down the state several times, but
very definitely I have.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
6
RM: Are these areas more common in this part of California or in some other parts?
HELENE: Are you referring to the ... I would say other parts other than southern California.
RM: Which other parts?
MAN: North.
MAN: The central and north.
MAN: We have them in Orange County.
MAN: I suppose by wetlands, you mean estuaries.
RM: Yes, well actually marshes. But estuaries are exactly what we mean and as I go on, we then
try to point that out by showing the map. So, Judy gets this map. (copies passed out to participants)
Okay, before we discuss, why don't you look at the map and try to see what it's showing because this is
an important part of the study. We need to make sure that everybody has the same idea about the
distribution of these types of shoreline in California. And again, before we discuss it, it would be helpful
if you would turn to your first page, the blank page of your handout, and if you would just write any
questions that you have about what the map shows. If you would write those down, that would give me
the opportunity to know what came to your mind before you heard what other people had to say.
WOMAN: How about just a comment?
RM: Comments are fine too, sure.
WOMAN: Not necessarily (inaudible).
RM: I'm particularly interested in questions you might have about it. Things that might not be
perfectly clear to you. Any aspect of it that might be confusing.
HELENE: Are you talking specifically of the marshes and the sandy beaches and ...
RM: Yes, that's right. The map, as the title says, is trying to convey to someone the types of
California shoreline habitats and their location. And they would get this right after the photographs, so it
would be the next thing in the survey.
MAN: It looks fine to me.
WOMAN: I was just thinking the same thing.
RM: Okay, if it's clear, then write "clear". That will give everybody a chance to write on the front
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
7
of your booklet.
MAN: On the front of it.
RM: Yes, if you would on the blank page. (Pause) Okay. Amir, what were you writing down?
AMIR: The picture has clearly depicted the corresponding colors of shoreline.
RM: So you didn't have any problem with it.
AMIR: No.
RM: Debbie, how about you?
DEBBIE: I put this only shows two marshlands and I almost missed one located (inaudible) at first
glance it looked like an arrow, as it was almost the same color, and then what's the purpose of the arrows?
Are you saying ... Then I looked at it, and I didn't write this down, I thought, is that supposed to be coastal
marsh, because it's not (inaudible)?
RM: So your guess is that it has something to do with coastal marshes, but you're ...
DEBBIE: Well, at first no, because it looks like the darker, kind of the blackish color is a rocky
shore. And then I saw two areas that are just shaded green which looked like that. They are supposed
to be the coastal marsh, but then afterwards, those arrows are the same color as that, so now I (inaudible).
RM: Heston, how about you?
HESTON: The only time (inaudible) the legend shows yellow and the whole shoreline is in this
dotted so it's not the ...
RM: It's not the same color (inaudible). You're right.
HESTON: I think I understand. I assumed the arrow was pointing to coastal marsh areas that are
too small to show on the map.
RM: Okay, what did the rest of you guess about the arrows?
MAN: I would not say it's necessary to indicate county lines where it's more important to indicate
rivers. The feeders that go into the marshes.
RM: Although unfortunately on a map of this scale, the rivers get very small, or if we put them big
enough to show... it would somewhat exaggerate the rivers. Mark, what did you think the green arrows
were?
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
8
MARK: The green arrows ... coastal marshes. I happen to know that there are coastal marshes
there, so ...
RM: I see, so it made sense to you.
MAN: I expect to find them there.
RM: Pauline, what was your guess?
PAULINE: It was the same with me. It seems very clear to me.
WOMAN: Then again, I knew where they were.
RM: You folks live on the coast. Obviously we'll be interviewing people that don't live on the
coast, so if that's a problem we need to take it into account. The arrows are exactly as you guessed.
They're intended to indicate those places along the coast where rivers go into the sea, and at those places
there are marshes. On a map of this scale, these places are relatively small, you really wouldn't see them
because they are so small. This (the arrows) is our attempt to convey this information without exaggerating
it.
WOMAN; Do you think it would just be better to make a bigger area here where it says coastal
marshes instead of having ... don't make a bar at all.
RM: Okay, but San Francisco Bay has a lot of marshes so that's why we had the bar. I guess
Eureka also has a bay with enough marshes to make it on a map of this scale, so that's why we had it. That
doesn't mean that's necessarily the best way to do it. Gloria?
GLORIA: Why is the yellow as the legend different in color from how it shows on the coast? That
was my comment.
RM: And that's a good comment. It's simply because in getting this map done, the yellow was put
over the gray on the coast for technical reasons, which confuses things. Clearly, the legend should show
the same appearance of the yellow as you see on the coast.
MAN: Why show all the marshes when the possibility of getting oil spills are limited to certain
areas? Why show the whole coastline then?
RM: In this stage, we want to give people a picture of the whole coast, and then later on, we'll talk
about the areas where the shipping is the greatest, and therefore there's the greatest risk of oil spills. So
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
9
this is intended to give the big picture. It's possible for a spill to occur anywhere. Spills are more likely to
occur in certain kinds of areas.
Do you have any other reactions to the map? One concern we had is that having all these arrows
might exaggerate the extent of the marshes. Do you think our fear is justified?
WOMAN: I was surprised when I saw there were so many.
RM: There actually are this many, but it's the relative size of them to the whole coast that's the
concern.
GLORIA: Why in Los Angeles and Monterey, do you show arrows on the shore itself?
RM: I don't actually know why, for Los Angeles. The map was done by some people in
California, and I only saw it today for the first time. For Monterey, I do know the answer. It's simply
because the coast curls and you couldn't ... the arrows would be very crowded if you had them all going
from the outside. Now one way we could do this would be to show the arrows from the land going out
to the sea. That's another way of illustrating where the marshes are. How would that be?
WOMAN: It might be more clear. I didn't confuse the arrows ... immediately it came to my mind
these were the marshes, but perhaps if they were coming from the other side, it would be that much more
clear.
RM: Now, what about the colors we chose to represent the three types of shoreline. They're
obviously arbitrarily, except yellow for sand.
MAN: (inaudible) put the screen on it. That was a printing error.
RM: That's exactly what that is. But do you find anything objectionable or confusing about the
colors or the choice -- yellow, the gray and the green.
GLORIA: The yellow and green are kind of the chemical ...
RM: That's the way they actually are.
GLORIA: You know, when they're not together. You put yellow and green together, you make
blue.
RM: That would be very strange.
MAN: Yellow is hard to see. I didn't even see that yellow on the legend when I first looked at it.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
10
RM: I see. What we could do with the yellow is to place a border around it like that. So in other
words, there would be a thin edge just delineating it, and that might help to see it. I think we could probably
do that. All right.
MAN: Still might be a problem. Yellow and green are adjacent on the spectrum.
GLORIA: Kind of blend together.
RM: Therefore, to distinguish them. And we could do some more tests. As I say this is a quick
attempt to churn out a map and I gather from your reactions, it seems promising, so it's worth pursuing a
better version of it.
MAN: What if somebody's color blind?
RM: What if someone's color blind. How does that affect yellow and green?
GLORIA: It needs to be more contrast.
RM: Is anyone color blind here?
MAN: I think green is one of the typical colors, because when you take an eye exam they always
...
RM: Thanks very much. We should definitely check that. People see that as red, don't they?
WOMAN: Brown.
RM: Or brown. What we need is a focus group of color blind people! So let's continue. You've
had the photographs, you've had the map. This is endeavoring to give a picture of the three types of
shoreline, to introduce them, and to show the distribution. And here's what I would read for the map.
We've been talking about it. Here's actually the text that we have at this stage.
[This is a map of California showing the coastline, and the counties, and some of the
coastal cities. The map shows where the three types of shoreline are shown on the coast.
The area marked in dark grey is predominantly rocky shoreline, the yellow areas are sandy
beaches, and the green areas mark the location of salt water marshes. They are located
along the coast in the places shown by the arrows where rivers run into the sea. Marshes
are also found in salt water bays, such as San Francisco Bay.]
And then the interviewer would point to San Francisco Bay.
WOMAN: That's very clear.
WOMAN: If I would have had someone read that to me, I wouldn't have even questioned.
RM: But you know, I wanted to get your spontaneous questions because they might be things I
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
11
wouldn't think of. So, all right. Now, I'll ask Judy a question.
[Which type of shoreline do you think the state should make the greatest effort to protect
-- marshes, rocky shoreline, or sandy beaches, or don't you have a preference about this?]
JUDY: Are we allowed to ask questions or just ...
RM: What's your question?
JUDY: Am I right in assuming that the marshes probably hold the most wildlife?
RM: The interviewer wouldn't be able to answer that question. They would say, all I can do is
repeat the question. So to answer this question use whatever you have in mind at this stage in the interview,
whatever your surmise is. It may be right or wrong, as I say, but if you had to choose between the three.
Which would you choose?
JUDY: I suppose for that reason, I would have to choose the sandy marshes, I mean, the
wetlands. But, boy, I don't know, the other two are awfully important to me. I enjoy the beach a lot, so
that would certainly make a difference on how I would vote taxes if those were protected.
RM: Okay. How about the rest of you -- what's your favorite?
MAN: Aren't you dodging the point. The fact that wildlife should be very important, because if
there's wildlife, then ...
RM: In fact, we'll talk about wildlife later, but at this stage in the interview, I just want to get their
reactions to the shoreline types before I give more information.
MAN: In the marshes specifically. I'm not sure, I'm not a wildlife person, but can you find fish and
wildlife there?
MAN: Marshes have the highest level of bio-diversity.
WOMAN: Would make a difference to me in how I answered you.
RM: But what would your answer be if I'd asked you that question before the discussion?
WOMAN: Well, I probably would have asked you the same thing she did because my main
concern is the ecology, for the generations to come. I can do without a suntan.
RM: Well, if the interviewer hadn't provided information, then what would your preference had
been?
WOMAN: It would have been because I assumed that the coastal marsh would carry the
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
12
environment, and that's why I would have answered it. But I also would have expected the interviewer to
assist me with the answer, otherwise he can't get a true answer from me.
RM: The interviewer would say, just based on the information you have here, what would your
preference be. It would be a reply like that at this stage, and it would be a hard question to answer,
because you would have questions. Okay. (turning to person being interviewed.) Now, so you said the
marsh, and I would go on to ask you: "Why do you want the state to make the greatest effort to protect
this type of shoreline?" Then you would have given me the answer you did. So this is a chance again for
us to find out how people feel about this before they get more information. Now, if everyone would turn
in your booklet to the second page with writing on it, which is marked Card B. I would hand Card B to
Judy, and ask her...
(End of Tape 1 - Side 1)
RM: [... even with present regulation, California experiences an average of 3 oil spills of
10,000 or more gallons every year. These spills are caused by oil tankers going off course
as they approach or leave their ports, due to human error or to mechanical problems. The
state is considering a new program to prevent these spills from damaging the shore.]
Okay. Reactions?
MAN: I thought you said earlier in the discussion, we already had a law that prevented large oil
spills, that we only had small ones.
RM: The previous discussion said it prevented most medium to large oil spills, and these three spills
are the ones that are not covered. But that previous passage I read was very wordy. It had ... and it's easy
to miss something. Other ... how many of the rest of you had Heston's reaction to it -- that I've already
guaranteed that all of them were ... Barb, you did?
BARB: There's already a law to prevent this, why is it still happening?
MAN: My first reaction to this is there is no way you can put a zero, quantify a zero, when
accidents are true accidents, so how do you get a zero with the new program.
RM: Just hold that one, Dave...
MAN: Just how are these new regulations being policed properly. They have regulations, but
who's overseeing them?
RM: Right. Well, like all regulations, they are implemented to a fairly large extent. They
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
13
accomplish a lot but they really don't cut it down totally. We'll get to your question, Dave. Other reactions
to the previous regulations? To what I've said about previous regulations? In other words, it seems
contradictory, I previously talked about regulations being successful, and here I'm talking about 3 spills.
WOMAN: That makes perfectly good sense to me. I don't see a contradiction there because ...
none of us really believed that you could really prevent them all anyway.
RM: Okay, what I'm thinking is Dave's question. All right.
MAN: ... phrasing of that earlier comment, I'd say it would be more appropriate to say that the
regulations in place that cause oil carriers to take precautions or whatever that minimize spills. Not that the
regulations prevent oil spills.
MAN: Do we have to separate these problems because one of them might be human being
negligence and other one is ...
RM: Yes. But I think the spills that occur in California are due to one or the other, but both
operate, and the plan I'll describe addresses the situation of both of these causes. Okay, how about Dave's
question which is how can we promise to make these zero?
JUDY: I don't think you're promising to make them zero. I think that what you're saying is that
you're ... that of the ones that were not prevented, let's say 3 in this last year, of those 3 that happened, with
these new regulations in place, those three wouldn't have happened, because of the types of spills that they
were, obviously this new regulation whatever it may be would have prevented those. Did I say that clearly?
RM: I think you said it clearly. Reactions to Judy's comment.
MAN: I believe that, but you're trying to interpret... yes, you're right, Judy, but you can't interpret
this that way.
RM: Why?
MAN: I didn't when I first looked at it.
RM: Okay, but why can't you interpret it?
MAN: Well, you can if you have enough time to think about it, but the first reaction I see is how
can you prevent an accident to zero.
RM: Why don't you express what you understand Judy to have just said.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
14
MAN: What Judy said was that the three accidents that occur on a yearly basis can be prevented
based on the scenario that it happened with. The laws that are going into place would encompass those
three problems or how they occurred.
RM: Okay, what do the rest of you think of when you saw this card, and my description. Larry,
what was your reaction?
LARRY: Still thinking about it.
WOMAN: I thought like Dave. A new program would not be needed.
RM: Why not?
WOMAN: Because I think the first three were supposed to be prevented because of the
regulations, but they weren't. They happened. And I don't think if something else new, I'm sure there
would be occasional spills, because whatever the regulations prevent, accidents happen.
RM: Let's pick up this issue again after I work through the next material which describes the plan
and how we do this. So, it's an important question, but it will be good to work through that and then we'll
discuss further. Are there any other questions or comments that people have at this stage before ...
WOMAN: What were the statistics before these regulations controlled accidents; before and
without regulations, how many accidents have been recorded?
RM: Well, since the regulations have been in effect for quite a while, it's hard to say, but there
would have been quite a few accidents it's fair to say. Because the regulations cover a lot of aspects of
tankers and how they're meant to come in, the crews that they have, the conditions under which they can
operate. So all we can say is many.
MAN: Presupposition in both cases is that the programs are effective, I mean, that was sort of the
starting point.
RM: Right.
MAN: ... which some people might contest.
MAN: And also it seems that shipping technology doesn't change. The oil companies have no
incentive to prevent spills themselves.
RM: That's true.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
15
MAN: It also assumes that there's no other legal remedies or legal disincentives that would affect
the oil companies besides regulations.
RM: Okay, let's go on and ...
MAN: I have another question about this, and if you know the minimum is 10,000 gallons, what's
a medium spill to a large spill. What's the comparison there?
RM: Well, the 10,000 is a ... is the point at which spills really become very damaging, and under
10,000 are lots of spills, and under 1,000 are many more spills. When ships load, and lose a few gallons,
technically that's a spill. So the attempt here is to find the level, the base level above which you then get
significant spills, and to target these since they can be very damaging when they occur in certain places.
To target these kinds of spills, but not to promise that we can prevent every spill of any size which is not
something that really can be done, but we want to cut them down as much as we can.
MAN: (inaudible) Canada pipe line.
RM: But then you get another kind of spill.
MAN: You get a land spill.
RM: That would work if we cut them off the water. Are any of you ...
MAN: 10,000 gallons?
RM: Which is much less than 10,000 barrels, which is considerably more.
Then I proceed in the interview. Why don't I just go over what we've done, so you can see the
flow of the interview.
[As you can see from this card, even with present regulation, California experiences an
average of 3 oil spills of 10,000 or more gallons every year, and then I explain how these
spills occur. The state's considering a new program to prevent these spills from damaging
the shore. Before describing the program, have you ever voted for or against any
propositions in a California election or aren't you sure about this?]
WOMAN: Say the last part.
RM: [Before I describe the program, have you ever voted for or against any proposition
to the California election, or aren't you sure about this?]
WOMAN: Yes, I have voted for or against California propositions.
RM: So the answer is yes. Do the others of you find the question confusing?
MAN: Are you talking propositions or oil propositions?
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
16
WOMAN: Why do you need to have that last clause in there?
MAN: Yeah, I was confused same as Judy, cause we're talking about oil and all of a sudden we're
jumping into a new topic.
RM: And the reason for the last clause is some people feel reluctant to say that well in fact they
haven't gotten around to voting, so it's an attempt to make it easier for people to say well, gee, I'm not quite
sure about that. That's the reason for it. It doesn't mean the wording is clear or good, and it seems to be
an abrupt ... how many of you felt it to be a very abrupt shift? About half. All right.
And after that, I would say.
[Here's how the plan would work. First the plan would require all the tankers and barges
in California waters that carry oil to stay at least 25 miles off the coast until they're ready
to approach their port, and at present, tankers sometimes sail closer to the shore because
it saves time and money. Second, whenever a tanker or barge comes closer than 25 miles
to come into port, the plan requires it to be escorted by a special oil safety ship which
would come out to meet it at the 25 mile limit. The oil safety ship would help make sure
the tanker stays on course, and strictly obeys all maritime regulations. This will help
prevent spills. If the tanker develops engine trouble, the oil safety ship would be large
enough that it could tow the tanker out of danger. If a spill does occur, the safety ship
would carry special equipment and trained personnel who would immediately begin to
place floating barriers on the water to keep the oil from spreading, and would use
skimmers to recover the oil from the sea to keep it from reaching the shore. Within a few
hours after the spill, the safety ship would receive assistance from one of the new oil
response centers that will be located along the California coast. Before I tell you about
how the program would be run and paid for, do you have any questions about how it
would work?]
JUDY: No, I would like to add to it a little bit. I don't think I have any questions.
RM: What about the rest of you, do you have any questions about how it would work? Heston?
HESTON: How many thousands of bureaucrats will it take to man these boats and the cost ...
MAN: Isn't the coast guard already supposed to ... doesn't the coast guard have a job of enforcing
...
RM: Not specifically. Obviously the coast guard is concerned with coastal shipping and does help
to maintain regulations, but they do not operate escort ships of this kind with this capability. So this is a
new way of doing it.
MAN: So they'll all hang out at Catalina Island.
RM: The escort ships?
MAN: The oil boats. That's 26 miles.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
17
RM: I see.
MAN: They have to be 25 miles from shore so how do they even get near there?
RM: So there's some concern about how the ... some dimensions of the plan as far as questions
about how it would work. Pauline?
PAULINE: I'm wondering if there happened to be an oil spill 25 miles from shore, would that spill
eventually get to shore if they weren't out there?
RM: It depends on the currents and the wind.
PAULINE: But it could. It could get to shore.
RM: But if it's 25 miles off shore, the notion is that there's enough time to try to contain it and try
to deal with it. If it's close to shore, unless you get to it very quickly, you get damage when it hits the shore.
WOMAN: What's causing the spills? Are they going off course... and it doesn't make any
difference. I mean, if it's 25 miles, they could be spilling right on their way in.
RM: Well, the plan would have these escort ships meet the ship at the 25 mile mark and then come
in with the ships. So obviously if there's any spill that's occurring, then the escort ship would be there.
WOMAN: The problem with the spill is that they don't... what causes them to make these spills
on their own.
RM: Well, what happens is there's either errors on the part of the captain in navigating the ship in
some way or in operating the ship sometimes, or there's mechanical problems and the ship gets into danger
and starts drifting and therefore can crash or break up in some way and release the oil. Mark?
MARK: How many oil spills were caused by collisions?
RM: That's a good question and I don't know.
MARK: I know at least some are.
RM: Do you think this plan would not be able to deal with that issue?
MARK: Well, I don't know. Send another ship out to meet the big ship might increase it although
it might prevent spills.
RM: It certainly is conceivable that the escort ship could ... although I'm not sure that it ...
MARK: The law of unintended consequences.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
18
RM: Yes, that's true.
MAN: The word -- was it ship or ships?
RM: Escort ship for each tanker.
WOMAN: Wasn't that Huntington Beach one caused by the fact that the ship wasn't double-hulled
or something. Is that ... if that's not a law already or a regulation already, why isn't it?
RM: We'll actually consider this a little later in the interview. So, I've described the program.
Now I say:
[If approved by the voters, the program would be put into effect for a period of 10 years.
If there is still a need for the plan at the end of 10 years, it will be revised and put on the
California ballot again for funding. It will only protect the California coast. The cost will
be passed on to California consumers through a special surcharge at the gasoline pump.
In order to make sure the money will not be used for anything else, the money from this
surcharge will go into a special state fund controlled by a board of public trustees. By law,
they can only use the fund for the response centers and safety ships. Before I tell you what
this program will cost your household if approved, it is important for you to know just what
kind of harm from oil spills it would prevent. As I mentioned, each year an average of
three spills of 10,000 gallons or more occur somewhere along the coast. State experts
note from past experience what kinds of environmental damage the new spill prevention
program would likely prevent each year. (Now if you would turn to the map.) This map
shows where the tankers go. As you can see, most of the tanker traffic is in three areas.
One is San Francisco where tankers carry oil to refineries in San Francisco Bay. Spills
here tend to affect marshy areas. A second place is Los Angeles, where tankers go to
refineries in the places shown on the map. Spills here tend to affect sandy beaches. The
third area is shown by this arrow, and I would point to the arrow that goes along the coast,
basically these areas here. The third area is shown by these arrows. Oil is carried back
and forth along the central coast here in barges. Spills here tend to affect rocky shoreline.]
Okay. Comments or questions?
WOMAN: You should use colored arrows.
RM: What color?
WOMAN: Well, green ones here. No, I'm sorry. This is the rocky shoreline. So the gray ones
there, and the sandy beaches down here yellow and so forth, just to correspond with this map over here.
I don't know, it just would stop some explaining.
RM: Other comments? Questions? Shirley?
SHIRLEY: Yeah, I have one. If I'm incorrect in my assumption. We have assumed we have a
captain of a ship, he makes an error, and we have a faulty ship. So at the gas pump I'm going to pay for
that. I think that intrudes. The oil company who hires the captain should see to it that they have a wellJ15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
19
qualified captain and the ship that is not going to, within reason, not going to have mechanical problems.
Doesn't that achieve the same thing as having a boat go out and come back, and I pay another nickel at
the gas pump.
MAN: I agree with her.
MAN: Not penalize, but charge a fee to the ships coming in and put it into a reserve fund, like an
insurance policy.
MAN: I think if it's taxes, it should be spread across the whole populace, instead of targeting
certain states that happen to be on the coast. That's unfair because we all share the oil. It's not a regional
issue, but a national issue.
WOMAN: I think Union's, being I'm correct, their profit market was 54% last year. Now, I'm
going to pay so they can make some more money for their negligence, and I use their damn gas.
RM: So it seems unfair to you...
WOMAN: Yes, you bet.
RM: ... for California taxpayers to pay for this.
WOMAN: When you've got a profit margin that high, you bet.
MAN: Aren't they already paying. Aren't there fines levied against ...
RM: Yeah, if the spills occur, the oil companies are responsible, and they have to pay for clean-up
and things have to restore. Of course, they are regulated and they do incur a lot of costs that reduce the
number of spills. What this program would do would basically prevent these spills from happening, or if
the spills happen, this is a way of preventing the spill from damaging the shore, because it would make it
possible to respond strongly.
MAN: So they have a vested interested in not losing the oil. The oil companies should be
interested in paying for these extra boats and things, instead of the base with the least clout, which they're
trying to do again, is the taxpayer and consumer.
WOMAN: When an oil spill happens, it's either mechanical or human fault which is the oil
companies' responsibility, not ours.
RM: But the oil companies do take the responsibility now, and are liable for damages that happen.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
20
All this plan would do would be to prevent ... and this is the essence of it, is this is worth money to you
folks or not? What this plan would do would be to prevent the damage from occurring in the first place.
So it's a prevention program. Mark?
MARK: Why a surcharge only on gasoline when there are thousands of things made from crude
oil?
RM: Because it's the most widespread use of oil in California. Oil heating isn't as widespread as
it is in other parts of the country, so it's a way of having the people that use the oil pay the extra cost of
preventing the spills. Gloria, you're shaking your head?
WOMAN: We're all shaking our head.
RM: Okay, why are you shaking your head.
WOMAN: Because it just doesn't seem fair that certain people have to ... it seems like certain
people are going to be doing most of the paying.
RM: Who's that?
WOMAN: The people that buy the gasoline, the oil.
WOMAN: Cause we are so dependent on oil. We should have better transportation or something
else to clean the air, and avoid this dependency on oil.
RM: Other comments, reactions? Debbie?
DEBBIE: I'm afraid it doesn't seem fair that we have to ... not that we have to, it's going to be a
choice, of course, but it shouldn't be our responsibility to pay for this extra stuff when we're not the ones
causing the problem.
RM: Except as consumers, of course, this is why it happens. So to that extent, we're all at fault.
And also if this program is put into effect, the oil companies would incur more costs, and is usual in our
system, these costs get passed onto the consumers. And since this plan would only protect California, it
wouldn't protect anyplace else, an issue is, is it worth it to California to have this protection to prevent the
damage that I'm going to talk about from these spills?
MAN: You just said the oil companies would incur higher costs.
RM: Yes.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
21
MAN: But I thought the tax added at the gasoline pump was going to go into the fund, and the fund
funded this activity. So how is the oil company going to pay?
RM: My point is if the oil companies were made to pay for this, the cost would get passed through
to consumers in a more diffuse way, but we would end up paying for it anyway.
MAN: But then it would be spread across the nation.
MAN: And it would still be related to market prices.
RM: It would only be passed on in their operations in California. Because the oil that comes to
California comes specifically to refineries that basically serve California.
WOMAN: Is California the only one that has access to this oil or does it go to other ...
RM: No, it comes to other states, and other states could have programs like this as well, if they
were interested in preventing the types of spills that I'm going to talk about in a little bit. So it's a local thing
if you will. Is it worth it to prevent this kind of damage?
Let's move on, because now we're going to shift to show you what will be prevented by it and this
is an important dimension of the plan. Okay. Now we hand Judy these cards which everyone should look
at. And I would read:
[These three cards describe the type of spill damage that would be prevented by this
program each year. Please spread them out and look at them. (Okay there should be one
of each of three types of spills. Has everybody got a southern, central coast and a greater
San Francisco Bay area card? All right. Why don't you look these cards over.) Each
card shows the location of a typical spill that would be prevented, the area impacted,
basically the extent of the area, the duration of the impact, that is, how long it would be
there before it was either cleaned up or natural processes take care of the damage, and
then indicates the wildlife affected by each type of spill.]
If we can, let's just look at the wildlife affected, because it's important for me to know if that
description makes sense to you, if it's reasonably clear about how the wildlife is affected, and what kinds
of wildlife are affected. Do you have any questions about any of those descriptions?
WOMAN: On that central coast of California, the wildlife affected, to be very honest, the last six
I have never even heard of.
WOMAN: I've heard of a loon.
WOMAN: What type of wildlife are they?
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
22
RM: These are types of birds.
WOMAN: They are all birds. Okay.
RM: How many others were not familiar with these types of birds? Okay, Shirley, how about you?
You know these kinds of birds. Would it be helpful to show people photographs?
WOMAN: I think it would help.
RM: Mark, you don't think so?
WOMAN: Are we assuming that it's better to kill one kind of animal more so than another kind
of animal.
RM: No, this is assuming that each of these types of spills does have a typical range of damage,
and it's ...
WOMAN: I mean, it doesn't matter that we don't know what those are.
RM: Oh, I see, it's important that you know they're birds, I think.
WOMAN: Well, it says they're birds.
RM: It would also be important that people not ... Some people ask if any of the wildlife listed
on the cards is endangered. None are. Studies of past spills have found that after a period of a few years,
the local wildlife populations are as they were before the spill. That's a basic experience that we have with
these kinds of spills. It takes time, it varies, but none of these particular species are endangered as such.
Is there any other information you think would be useful or important to convey?
MAN: Well, what about other wildlife. You know, it seems to be an acceptable, I mean, 100
birds killed for the amount of impact it causes. I mean, for the taxes raised. What other wildlife ... what
about the sea life?
RM: This is it for the kinds of spills that would be prevented. There would not be seals or sea lions
killed, and typically they're not killed.
MAN: What about fish and crabs and crustaceans...
RM: That's a very good question because there is damage, especially in the rocky shorelines, to
the ecosystems. It gets complex to describe. Fish themselves tend not to be affected by oil spills. Unless
the spill occurs in a place where the fish are breeding, then it can damage the eggs and the whole process,
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
23
so it's a matter of timing. But normally fish, and this is true even in the Alaska oil spill, the fish themselves
that were swimming around at the time are not affected by the oil on the surface of the water.
MAN: But if you destroy the kelp beds like even in Central or even down here, where there's a
heavy habitat of seals and otters, if the kelp beds go, they go too even if the oil wasn't a direct affect down
there because of the sea life.
RM: I guess it is possible. These data come from studies that I obviously haven't conducted, but
were conveyed to me, and I believe these other effects, which are conceivable, simply don't happen from
the kinds of spills that occur in California.
WOMAN: Are these statistics accurate?
RM: Well, they're intended to be as accurate as possible in describing these kinds of spills.
Neither to exaggerate nor to minimize the damage. To simply convey what happens, but not to provide
too much or too little information.
MAN: Who provided the information?
RM: Oh, state biologists. All right. What about the other descriptions on the cards? Is there any
aspect of those that aren't clear or that may be confusing, or that can be improved in some way?
DEBBIE: I don't know what "ecosystem function" means.
RM: Which card is that?
WOMAN: That's on Greater San Francisco Bay area. That ecosystem is that ...
RM: Yes, "ecosystem function". Who else isn't clear about what that means, is there anyone else?
MAN: Is it ecology in general (inaudible) toxic gas and they pollute ...
RM: That's some of the things that are involved, but can I ask who else, is everybody else familiar
with "ecosystem function?"
SOL: I thought I did, but now I'm confused.
LARRY: No.
DAVE: No idea.
JUDY: I think I do.
RM: So some have problems with that. Thank you, Debbie, that's useful. Any other comments
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
24
about what's said on the cards. So we can then move on. And I would ask in the interview, "is there
anything you would like me to repeat about what the program would prevent before I go on?" That's
because there's a fair amount of reading and often when you're interviewing, children are pulling on the
person's arm, or the television is on, and you can't hear or remember everything.
WOMAN: Yeah, I would ask that. To repeat, because thinking back I'm thinking to myself, that
none of this has anything to do with oil spills that are caused by platform places, because I don't remember
hearing any mention of that. You know, like the Santa Barbara spill a while ago, and so forth. So it
doesn't, right?
RM: This plan, as it's described here doesn't, no. No, it's mainly the tankers and barges. Okay,
now I move on to say.
[Now I would like to know how you would vote on this program if it were on the
California ballot and it would cost your household $25.00 a year in higher gas and oil
prices. You would pay this each year for the 10 year life of the program. If it is approved,
the program would begin a year from now in January 1993 and would continue until
January 2003.]
Is that clear?
WOMAN: How do you know it's $25.00. My gas bill is $420 a month. Is mine going to be
$25.00 a year?
RM: This is the ... a basically ... the best estimate of what each household would pay. So the
question is if it were to cost you this much, would you vote for the program or not. That's the intent of the
question. Is it worth ... is the program worth $25.00 a year for the next ten years to prevent each year
spills like this or not.
MAN: Is that a household or per person?
RM: Household.
MAN: I would say that's an acceptable thing, but you're contradicting what you said earlier, which
is 5 cents a gallon.
WOMAN: No, he didn't say that, one of us said that.
MAN: I'm sorry about that. So this isn't a 5 cents a gallon increase?
WOMAN: No, one of us said that. I don't remember who it was, but we just said, as an example,
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
25
somebody threw out 5 cents a gallon, but he didn't say that. Because I've still been waiting to hear how
much it was gonna ...
RM: Before we go any further and have more discussion, if you would turn back to the front page
and answer this question for yourself at this point. Be frank and honest, as I say I have no vested interest
in what you say. If it (the program) were to cost your household $25.00 a year in higher gas and oil prices,
would you pay this each year for the 10 year life of the program. If it is approved, the program would
begin a year from now in January 1993 and would continue until January 2003, but basically yes or no or
not sure, if you're not sure. And while you're writing that down, I'll read the rest of what we'd say before
the person would actually give an answer.
[Those who support the program say they would vote for it because it is worth $25.00 a
year to them to prevent the harm to the shore and to the wildlife described in these cards.
Those who oppose the program give various reasons. Some say taxes are too high
already. Some say the program costs too much for what it would prevent. Some say they
would rather use the money for other things or other programs that are more important to
them. Then we go on to say, if this program cost your household $25.00 a year, and
would actually prevent the type of harm shown on these cards, and only that type of harm,
would you vote for that program or against it.
So it's that sequence of material (in the questionnaire) that attempts to give people a way of responding to
this program.
WOMAN: Could this be ... we all have vehicle registrations... could it be broken down by car
rather than at the gas pump where it penalizes salesmen, which is what I am, against my 87 year old aunt
who drives around and spends $10.00 a month on gas. I mean, hey, we all have cars. We all use gas.
But the penalty goes stronger against those who work.
MAN: I have three cars, so then I'm paying a penalty on all three cars, versus an individual with
one car.
RM: Sol, what was your reaction?
SOL: I tend to agree over there, but again, is this going to be in addition to the gas tax.
RM: I believe, Shirley's proposing an alternative.
SOL: What's the original plan?
RM: The original plan is a surcharge at the gas pump that would on average cost the average driver
$25.00.
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
26
SOL: I tend to agree that it's not fair to a traveling person versus I'm retired. I used one of ours
to go here, down there and back. $10.00 a week sometimes. That's all I spend. So it's not fair.
WOMAN: Some people go to work and (inaudible) Los Angeles.
WOMAN: Maybe the people who use more should pay more.
WOMAN: But we're (inaudible) so some of us shouldn't have to pay the ecology price for
everyone.
RM: Just choosing between those two ways of paying...
MAN: I think it's worth it, and I would vote for it. I would pay for it.
RM: But which do you think is a better way to pose the question to people -- when you register
the car every year, to have a yearly fee for each car...?
(End of Tape 1 - Side 2)
RM: Actually this imposes on people. If they don't drive much, they would pay as much as some
of the drivers, a lot like Shirley does.
MAN: (inaudible) to the state tax law.
RM: But that would put it into income taxes and remove it from the people who don't drive, use
mass transportation, and therefore, aren't in that sense benefitting from the oil, they would not be liable.
WOMAN: But they are benefitting from the ecology. Isn't this something that affects everyone,
not just those of us who drive a car?
RM: That's very true. But which way is fairest to pay for it?
WOMAN: But those of us who drive a car are also causing the problem, so I don't know that ...
I don't feel like it's unfair to the drivers to be paying for it. Because if we all took mass transit, our ecology
wouldn't be in big trouble. (inaudible) I realize that, but what I'm saying is that this isn't just paying for
ecology. I mean I think your argument is sound in that you believe this is helping ... this is paying for a good
environment, but what I'm saying is that the people who are causing the environment to be bad may be
should be the ones that pay.
WOMAN: Now we're going back to the gas company. Because they're the ones that ...
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
27
RM: Why don't I get a comment that I couldn't quite get because ...
WOMAN: Because she said the people who are driving are causing the problem? You know why
they're causing the problem. They don't have any other choice. There is no mass transportation. So it's
not their fault. They're not causing the problem, it's the only choice we have. We use the car to go to work
20 miles away (inaudible). That's the only choice.
MAN: This may not be an option in this line of questioning, but why not impose the charge on the
oil companies through some sort of insurance fund, the ones that can manage their business better and
prevent oil spills don't get charged as much, and the ones that are incompetent end up paying more and then
they have to pass it through to consumers, and consumers theoretically will buy from a lower priced
supplier, so you put the burden back on the people that are closest to managing the problem, rather than
creating a state bureaucracy.
MAN: Similar to fire insurance on your home. They ought to take out insurance on damage from
the boats.
RM: But again, they are going to pass that price onto the consumer.
MAN: Yeah, but again, they have market pricing to deal with. If you're totally incompetent and
now they charge $2.00 a gallon, nobody's going to buy their gas, if somebody else is $1.10. So it forces
them to manage this process better, so they don't create these difficulties.
RM: Okay, before time runs out, I want to... if I can, to get to the end of the questionnaire. Okay,
at this stage, I've asked the question about willingness to pay, then I would ask, "What was it about the
program that made you willing to pay for it." This we could ask the people who said, yes, they would vote
for it. For those that vote against it, we would ask, "Did you vote against the program because you can't
afford it, because it isn't worth that much money to you, or because of some other reason?" And for those
that say they're not sure, they would get asked, "Why aren't you sure?"
And then I would go on to say:
[I told you that it would take a year before the full program could go into effect in January
1993. This delay is necessary to assemble the ships and train their crews. However, it
would be possible to begin the program on a limited basis this coming year by shifting
existing ships and equipment to escort ship duty. This would be done in the central
California area, because it is the area with the greatest risk of spills. (Then I would indicate
the central California card, if you would look at that card, and I would say:) This card
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
28
shows the harm that would be caused by the type of rocky coast spill, the interim plan
would prevent in 1992 if it were to go into effect.]
And then I would ask:
[If this interim program would cost your household $10.00 in higher gas and oil prices next
year, would you vote for it or against it. If you vote for the program, you would prevent
this type of harm from just this one type of oil spill during 1992. It would do nothing to
prevent the other two spill types during 1992. If you vote against the interim program, and
this question would only be asked to people who would say they are willing to pay for the
full program. If you would vote against the program, the full 10 year protection program
would still begin a year later, and you would begin paying $25.00 a year for it at that time.]
Now before, we have further discussion, I'd like you write your own reaction, write how you would
respond to that question under where you responded to the first question. Would you vote for it or against
it, or not sure? This is the interim program for 1992. If it would prevent this one type of spill. Are you for
it, against it, or not sure. (Pause) Okay, comments, questions on the interim program. Is the description
clear?
PAULINE: No comment.
RM: Why don't you describe for me what the plan does, just so I can see if it's clear.
PAULINE: On this last card you just told us to look at.
RM: Tell me what it would do. Explain the interim plan to me.
PAULINE: I would rather have somebody else explain it, because I'm not quite sure I know that
you're referring to.
RM: I've just described the interim plan. And then somebody says to you after the group, I really
didn't hear it. What was that interim plan about. How would you answer that question?
PAULINE: Well, the way I took this was that if we didn't vote for the first ... if we didn't vote for
the $25.00 a year increase, would we vote for $10.00 for this thing on the rocky shoreline, and you said,
if you vote yes on one, you would vote yes on the other. Are we talking about the same thing? I can't
understand why someone wouldn't vote yes on the $25.00 a year, increasing the tax.
RM: Okay. Mark, what did you understand by it?
MARK: The big plan wouldn't take place until 1993, so the interim plan is a plan that would take
place between the passage of the big plan and its implementation in 1993 would involve taking ships that
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
29
already exist for an average of $10.00 per household per year, and protecting central California basically
(inaudible).
RM: How about the rest? Any other ...
WOMAN: You could vote for one without voting for the other.
RM: Where I think I confused Pauline is in the questionnaire itself. You would never get asked
about the interim plan unless you said "yes" to the full plan. Otherwise it would be assumed that preventing
spills doesn't have value to you. The interim plan is just asked to see if it's worth something ... is it worth
this amount to people who said "yes" to prevent this one type of spill which we can do in the interim. If it's
possible to do that.
PAULINE: It should be worth it.
RM: Why?
PAULINE: For reasons you explained.
RM: Well, was it worth it to everyone?
MAN: If you bought off on the $25.00 deal, the $10.00 is even better, because you're actually
saving more wildlife and people that would buy into this program would accept that.
RM: Why is it better?
MAN: Because of the habitat that you're saving is greater than the other two.
RM: I see. So the rocky coast type of spill, in your view, has more value than ...
MAN: Well, personally I think the marshes, but according to your kill ratio here ...
WOMAN: If you were to put this on the ballot, would you in any way indicate how that figure of
$25.00 would be arrived at?
RM: It would simply be the cost of implementing the program.
WOMAN: I would say I would pay the $25.00 but not (inaudible) somewhere else.
HESTON: California voters are gullible, but they wouldn't fall for just an average $25.00 a year.
We've been tricked too many times.
MAN: I agree with Heston in that based on what you're saying, yes, I would vote for it. But in
reality, I mean after ... I would question the 10 year program, and I would question the $25.00 average
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
30
cost. It would have to be a lot firmer text than what you just explained, otherwise I'd vote no.
RM: Why would you vote no?
MAN: Because I don't believe the 10 year span is true. And I also don't believe the $25.00
average cost.
RM: Let's take the 10 year span. Why don't you think it's true?
MAN: Because if you base it on ... historically we pass bills over and over again after a certain
period of time, and as it approaches the end of the life, there's an extension to extend it another 3 to 5
years.
RM: So, in fact, you'd be voting for a program that would continue forever.
MAN: Yes, especially once you get all the bureaucracy involved, and the ships, and the
manpower.
RM: I see.
GLORIA: I would say the 10 years would never end.
RM: How many of you had that assumption? Quite a few of you.
WOMAN: The lawmakers have done that. I mean they've done it to themselves. You, I don't
mean you, I mean the government, you put an earthquake percent for a certain period of time, and they did
take it off, but then as soon as they took it off, they shoved something else in to take its place. And so we
have lacked trust.
RM: Now, Dave, you mentioned a second aspect of it, besides the 10 year plan. What was that
aspect?
DAVE: $25.00 average cost. I don't believe it.
RM: What seems wrong about it to you?
DAVE: Because there was no way to get that average cost per household based on what you said.
I don't believe it. First of all, it's either based on paying a surcharge on gas, an additional penny, two cents,
whatever that is, or the other option was paying it per vehicle. And either one of those plans don't work.
RM: They don't work?
DAVE: I mean it works, but people specifically in southern California usually have more than one
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
31
car. They drive a lot more mileage than the rest of the people in California.
RM: But what you're saying doesn't say why it wouldn't work. It just says that people in southern
California ...
DAVE: I would be paying more than $25.00.
RM: Which is not fair which is different than saying it doesn't work. Or am I missing something?
DAVE: No, it would work. But I would be paying more than $25.00 and most of the people in
here would too.
RM: I see.
WOMAN: When you put on the ballot, it's going to cost $25.00 per household. I mean you have
a natural, especially if you've got a job like Shirley does, you have a natural feeling to say, hey, does that
mean me or does that mean the person who only drives 10,000 a year. How does that person that's voting
on that, yes or no, make it real to themselves on what is it actually costing me. In other words, does it say
the average household, or does it say, if you drive so many miles per year, it's going to cost you that much.
It's not like you've taken an amount and you divide it by the number of households in the state, and so
therefore, you know it's going to cost each household $25.00. You put it on the gas pump, which makes
it real ...
RM: ... varies a lot.
GLORIA: But also each household has three cars, they have 2 teenagers that go to college, and
drive only one car to work. They're not going to pay $25.00.
WOMAN: Are they basing it on one or two cars?
WOMAN: See we don't know that.
RM: It's an average per household.
WOMAN: What do you consider average?
RM: I think I see the problems with that part of it. What I'd like to do - - and we just have a
couple of minutes - - is to see if there are other aspects of the interim program you question or would like
more information about. This is the program that would fill in for the year.
WOMAN: I'm not sure, because I'm kind of like, I might as well wait for the next when they all
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
32
can be protected not just a portion of it.
RM: So basically preventing this one spill isn't worth that much to you. You'd rather...
WOMAN: I would rather just wait and take care of it all at once.
RM: Other comments?
MAN: This 10 year plan is more feasible than interim plan.
RM: Why is that?
MAN: It's a 10 year plan, and whatever you want to invest in the 10 years plan will actually give
you more coverage on any damages to the ecology so that it is more feasible than the interim plan for the
money, and after interim plan must then come across with another solution, and then adopt another plan
in the next interim ... so ten-year plan gives you more coverage. (inaudible)
RM: Okay, any of you others share Amir's feeling about the difference between the two plans?
SHIRLEY: I would vote for it if it was gonna cost me $10.00. I'd like to see anything get started
and see whether it would work. I mean everything is trial and error. If that's as much as you can do for
a bit of time, it seems to me it's worthwhile.
RM: Okay. Time has run almost out. There are two things I'd like to say. First is to thank you
for coming out and giving me your views about this questionnaire, the things I've shown you and the topic.
The second, I'm going to give you a questionnaire, just to give us some background information about you.
Don't put your names on it. If you would answer these questions, it would be very helpful. I'll collect the
material or you can just leave them at your place. Stanley is one of my colleagues. Stanley, do you have
a question?
STANLEY: Yes, I had one or two questions.
RM: Sure. While you're writing, why don't you ask the question, and we can just take a brief
break and get your answers to it.
STANLEY: I guess one of the things we were curious about was the time to recovery that was
listed on the yellow cards. Was that something you felt significantly affected your willingness to pay or not
to pay for the plan? In other words, how important would it have been if it turns out that the duration of
the impact instead of being let's say on the central coast of California for two years, it would have been only
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
33
one year or alternatively the two years would have been four years. Is that something that would shift your
feelings?
MAN: What shifted mine was the wildlife affected for the amount of cost it's going to involve. If
I was to see it, I'd say it's not worth it.
STANLEY: How about others of you in terms of the duration of the impact? How important was
that?
WOMAN: It was to me.
STANLEY: It was important to you?
WOMAN: A shorter time would have been important to me too, but certainly two years is a lot
more important than 6 months or 2 months.
STANLEY: So 2 years seemed like a long time to you?
WOMAN: Yeah.
STANLEY: Other reactions?
MAN: Seems like a short time to me.
WOMAN: Yeah, it would have been a lot longer, maybe four years, (inaudible) than just two
years.
MAN: Two years just doesn't seem long enough for a marshland to recover after everything dies
and it just doesn't seem long enough.
STANLEY: How many of you also shared Dave's feeling that there wasn't much an impact on
wildlife?
WOMAN: Yeah, I thought it would be more ... you know, seals, and other, than just birds I've
never heard of before.
STANLEY: And so that made you less willing to feel you should pay for the program or want to
pay for the program?
WOMAN: Yeah, although I did say yes, but still that played a factor.
STANLEY: Others? I guess the only other question we had really is the latest of that in terms of
... if it had turned out that some of the birds that were affected or species of bird that was affected, was an
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
34
endangered species ...
MAN: Much more affected.
RM: What if the endangered was only to the species in California?
SHIRLEY: It's still an urgency.
RM: Even though there are birds of that type in other parts of the country or the world.
SHIRLEY: Balance. Every animal plays a part in the balance in the ecology. This is my
understanding.
RM: How many feel as Shirley does that even if it's just endangered in California that would be
a significant change from how you'd think about it? Two, three others.
MAN: That's a tough one.
RM: Tough one. Why is it tough?
MAN: I mean you never want to see an endangered species go. There's got to be genetically a
difference between a species here than somewhere else in the country.
RM: Mark, you were shaking your head. Wouldn't make a difference to you, why is that?
MARK: It's just not one of the things I consider. And whether an oil spill just has an aesthetic
effect or permanent ecological damage, it's more or less bad for the same reasons.
WOMAN: When they show the oil spills on the T.V., and they show the goop coming up on the
thing, you go eeeww, that's a mess. But then when they take the birds and they show them washing them,
then the heart comes out, that's terrible. I mean that's my reaction.
RM: Any other comments about the endangered species side of it? Okay, well.
WOMAN: You know, maybe you should have said something... I don't know (inaudible) many
people, when you talk about aesthetics, for instance, the tar and stuff that's left on the beach for years to
come. It's not two weeks. I mean, your beach is open, but it's not clean for years.
RM: Actually they scoop that sand off and take it away.
WOMAN; Oh, they may, but you get tar on your feet... you're still getting tar on your feet in Santa
Barbara. What was that 1978, 1976 or something?
RM: But the thing about Santa Barbara, they also have natural seepage of oil which leaves tar on
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
35
the beach.
WOMAN: They never had that problem before that spill, not that we really ever noticed anyway.
RM: When you're finished, just leave all your materials right at your place, and do take your time
on the last question, because it's very useful for us to find out what you think about that.
(End of Tape 2)
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
36
APPENDIX I
CARDS USED TO REPRESENT THREE SPILLS
LOCATION:
CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA
AREA IMPACTED: PATCHES OF OIL OVER 25 MILES OF ROCKY
SHORELINE
DURATION OF IMPACT:
2 years until natural cleansing accomplished
WILDLIFE AFFECTED:
kills 7500 sea and shore birds such as:
murres, murrelets, auklets, grebes,
loons, and scoters
LOCATION:
GREATER SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
AREA IMPACTED: 25 ACRES OF SALTWATER MARSH
DURATION OF IMPACT:
2 years to recover full ecosystem function
WILDLIFE AFFECTED:
kills 100 wading and shore birds such as:
herons, ducks, and gulls
kills 10 small animals such as:
weasels and muskrats
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd
38
LOCATION:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AREA IMPACTED: 5 MILES OF SANDY BEACH SHUT DOWN
DURATION OF IMPACT:
reopens after 3 weeks of intensive cleanup
WILDLIFE AFFECTED:
kills 250 sea and shore birds such as:
sea gulls, plovers, sand pipers,
cormorants, and scoters
J15_IRVINE_12SEP1991.wpd