Q:   What is the most significant environmental issue?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Energy efficiency 4 .6 .6 .6 Traffic congestion 4 .7 .7 1.3 Yucca Mountain 10 1.6 1.6 2.9 Litter 15 2.6 2.6 5.5 Overpopulation 181 30.2 30.2 35.7 Development of open space 15 2.5 2.5 38.2 Preservation of natural areas/wildlife 9 1.4 1.4 39.6 Air quality 90 15.0 15.0 54.6 Water availability 170 28.3 28.4 83.0 Water quality 102 17.0 17.0 100.0 Total 599 99.8 100.0 Missing DK/No answer 1 .2 Total 600 100.0

Most Significant Environmental Issue, by Jurisdiction:

Unincorp. Clark County City of Las Vegas City of N. Las Vegas Henderson Boulder City Mesquite Total Water quality Count 51 20 12 11 8 0 102 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 21.1% 11.0% 18.8% 12.9% 42.1% 0.0% 17.0% % of Total 8.5% 3.3% 2.0% 1.8% 1.3% 0.0% 17.0% Water availability Count 73 46 12 33 3 2 169 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 30.2% 25.3% 18.8% 38.8% 15.8% 25.0% 28.2% % of Total 12.2% 7.7% 2.0% 5.5% 0.5% 0.3% 28.2% Air quality Count 27 38 9 10 4 2 90 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 11.2% 20.9% 14.1% 11.8% 21.1% 25.0% 15.0% % of Total 4.5% 6.3% 1.5% 1.7% 0.7% 0.3% 15.0% Preservation of natural areas/wildlife Count 3 3 0 2 0 0 8 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 1.2% 1.6% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% % of Total 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% Development of open space Count 11 2 0 2 0 0 15 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 4.5% 1.1% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% % of Total 1.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% Overpopulation Count 58 63 26 27 4 4 182 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 24.0% 34.6% 40.6% 31.8% 21.1% 50.0% 30.3% % of Total 9.7% 10.5% 4.3% 4.5% 0.7% 0.7% 30.3% Litter Count 9 4 3 0 0 0 16 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 3.7% 2.2% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% % of Total 1.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% Yucca Mountain Count 5 4 2 0 0 0 11 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 2.1% 2.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% % of Total 0.8% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% Traffic congestion Count 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 0.8% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% % of Total 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% Energy efficiency Count 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% % of Total 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% Total Count 242 182 64 85 19 8 600 % within Respondent Jurisdiction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 40.3% 30.3% 10.7% 14.2% 3.2% 1.3% 100.0%

Q:   How would you rate local government's performance in preserving natural resources in Clark County?   Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Poor 97 16.2 16.4 16.4 Fair 255 42.5 42.9 59.3 Good 202 33.6 34.0 93.3 Excellent 40 6.6 6.7 100.0 Total 594 99.1 100.0 Missing DK/No answer 6 .9 Total 600 100.0

Q:   Which of the following best describes your level of concern, if any, about the current drought in Clark County?   Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not concerned 30 5.1 5.1 5.1 Somewhat unconcerned 22 3.7 3.7 8.8 Somewhat concerned 184 30.7 30.7 39.5 Very concerned 363 60.5 60.5 100.0 Total 600 100.0 100.0

Q:   In general, how would you rate the quality of Clark County's drinking water?   Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Poor 252 42.0 42.5 42.5 Fair 155 25.8 26.1 68.6 Good 154 25.7 26.0 94.5 Excellent 32 5.4 5.5 100.0 Total 593 98.8 100.0 Missing DK/No answer 7 1.2 Total 600 100.0

Q:   In general, how would you rate Clark County's air quality?   Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Poor 164 27.3 27.3 27.3 Fair 267 44.5 44.7 72.0 Good 149 24.8 24.8 96.8 Excellent 19 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 598 99.7 100.0 Missing DK/No answer 2 .3 Total 600 100.0