Menu
A 2024 scientific poll of 869 Nevada “likely voters” was conducted in April 2024 in conjunction with this study. It explored Nevadans’ response to the state’s 35-year rapid population growth and loss of natural habitat and farmland (1982-2017), as well as priorities on what, if anything, should be changed in public policy for the future. (The results had a standard “margin of Sampling Error of +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.”)
Click here to view the polling company’s full survey with precise wording of all questions, the order they were asked, and methodology. Many of the overall responses are summarized on the Home page of this report; some of the variations among subgroups of Nevadans are shown below.
On most questions, all or nearly all the 28 subgroups chose the same top answer as the population as a whole. This was regardless of gender, race, income, education, political party, ideology, age, whether a person was a life-long Nevadan, and whether the person claimed their residence as a large city, suburbs, or small city/town/rural.
Nonetheless, there often were some statistically significant variations among subgroups’ support for that top preference (as shown in a later section).
The across-the-spectrum general agreement with the least variation among subgroups was particularly notable on these three Nevada voter opinions:
The state needs to stop or dramatically slow down more “development taking over natural habitat and farmland.”
Continuing the recent rate of population growth will make the future of Nevada “worse.”
Drawing more heavily on the state’s aquifers is not the water solution for a growing population
In a time of deep partisan divisions, large majorities of Nevadans in each party affiliation are agreed in support of ambitious habitat protection.
Do you support or oppose the federal government’s goal of protecting 30 percent of America’s land and waters from development by the year 2030?
Continuing the rate of population and development growth in Nevada will force tough choices about where scarce water in the nation’s driest state will go.
There was little or no statistically significant difference in river answers among subgroups in each of the categories of income levels, race, gender, or whether people were native or had moved to Nevada as children or adults.
Nevada is the nation’s driest state. Cities and towns compete with agriculture for water. Should some water currently used to irrigate farmland be diverted to support additional human population growth in Nevada?
Clearly opposed to taking water from agriculture to handle more population growth: 25 of the 28 subgroups
Statistically evenly divided between YES and NO answers: Liberals and residents of Big Cities
The only subgroup clearly favoring diversion from agriculture: Young Adults (18-39)
The most significant major differences in support for diverting water from agriculture were found in three categories of Nevadans (age, party, nativity), although there wasn’t majority support from any of the three.
Hispanics (42%) and Whites (26%)
Democrats (39%) and Republicans (21%)
Lifelong Nevadans (40%) and people who moved in as adults (25%)
Nevadans were especially opposed to the aquifer solution for rapid population growth. Only 21% favored it, while 64% worried that “aquifers are already being over-pumped.”
More remarkable was how similarly most subgroups opposed the aquifer solution for rapid growth.
Men (63%), Women (65%)
White (65%), Hispanic (61%), Others (63%)
Democrats (61%), Republicans (66%), Others (65%)
Conservatives (64%), Moderates (64%), Liberals (68%)
Large City (61%), Suburbs (64%), Small City/Town/Rural (69%)
Nevada Natives (60%), Moved as Child (63%), Moved as Adult (67%)
No College Degree (63%), Degree (65%)
Less than $50,000 income (63%), $50,000-$100,000 (67%), More than $100,000 (61%)
Only the age category showed significant differences in its subgroups, but all three subgroups heavily opposed the solution.
While deep partisan divisions are the norm of the day in America on all kinds of issues, Nevada Democrats, Republicans and Independents were virtually identical in their response to two questions about growth, overwhelmingly supporting a dramatic slowdown or halt to the state’s rapid expansion in population and sprawl.
The POPULATION of Nevada has more than tripled the last four decades. Would you prefer that the state’s population continue to grow rapidly, that it grow much more slowly, that it stay about the same size, or that it become smaller?
Federal data show that Nevada has the highest rate of NEW DEVELOPMENT taking over natural habitat and farmland. Does Nevada still have enough habitat and farmland to continue that rate of rural loss, or should it slow down the loss dramatically, or try to stop the losses?
When considering solutions to slow down Nevada’s population and sprawl growth, Nevadans of the three political identities did diverge some, although generally supporting the same solutions.
Major differences could occasionally be found among the subgroups of other demographic categories.
A major source of Nevada’s population growth is people moving in from other states, especially California.
Should local and state governments in Nevada make it more difficult for people to move to Nevada from other states by RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT?
Support for such restrictions are much higher (62%-28%) among those who’ve lived their life in Nevada than for those who moved to the state as adults (46%-38%).
One potential way of controlling new growth is by LIMITING THE NUMBER OF NEW HOOK-UPS TO SEWAGE LINES and wastewater treatment plants. Do you favor using this as a tool to manage or control growth?
Another major source of Idaho population growth is immigration from other countries. Should the federal government reduce annual immigration to slow down Nevada’s population growth, keep immigration and population growth at the current level, or increase annual immigration and population growth?
But the significant difference of opinions by age and politics was not found in other groupings of Nevadans, such as by race.
The support for immigration reduction among Whites, Hispanics, and All Others was all within the standard statistical margin of error of the 60%-32% support by all Nevadans. The same similarity was true among subgroups in the categories of income, education, gender, where people live, and how long they have lived in Nevada
In trying to reduce population growth from illegal immigration, should the government mandate that all employers use the federal electronic E-Verify system to help ensure that they hire only legal workers for U.S. jobs?
All 28 subgroups of Nevadans overwhelmingly supported the system to limit jobs to legal workers. Support was 2-to-1 or greater for every subgroup except Independents and Liberals (who still favored mandatory E-Verify by 54%-34%).
One way for Nevada communities to handle continued population growth without losing as much open space, natural habitat, and farmland is to change zoning and other regulations to funnel more current and future residents into apartments and condo buildings instead of single-family houses with yards.
Voters who have lived in Nevada their whole life favor the funneling (53%-38%) while people who have moved to the state as adults don’t (39%-52%).
