# Results from AWWA’s Surveys and Pilot Tests on Electronic Delivery of Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) EPA Retrospective Review April 11, 2012

Adam T. Carpenter Regulatory Analyst AWWA

– Washington, DC

# Outline

• History of Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

• Recent CCR legislation

• AWWA Surveys and Pilots

• Small 2010 Survey

• A few pilots

• Larger 2011 Survey


# • Next Steps

• Recommendations

# CCR History

• New Section 1414(a)(4) of 1996 SDWA

• CCR regulation to be promulgated 24 months after August 1996, after stakeholder consultation

• “...community water systems to mail to each customer of the system at least once annually a report....”

• Regulation to include several definitions


### • Contents of report in statutory language

• Source water

• Definitions

• Detections of regulated contaminants

• Unregulated contaminants with required monitoring

• Health effects language


### • Mailing alternatives: <10,000 and <500 people

# CCR History (cont.)

• NDWAC CCR Workgroup in 1997

• Met consultation requirements

• Developed recommendations for CCR Rule


### • Proposed CCR Rule in February 1998

• Final CCR Rule in October 1998

• First CCRs by systems mailed by Oct. 1, 1999

• Based on 1998 monitoring


### • Most systems have figured it out how to meet the July 1 st 

### annual deadline

• Violations not readily available on SDWISFED

# Recent CCR Legislation

• In 2011, Rep. Young (R - Fla.) introduced HR 1340, the End Unnecessary Costs Caused by Report Mailing Act

• Amends Section 1414(a)(4) of the SDWA to remove the mailing requirement

• If no violations, utilities could post CCRs on website

• Mail upon customer request


### • Senator Toomey (R - Pa.) introduced a companion bill, S 1578

• AWWA supports these two bills

• Bills have not been passed to date

# Previous Surveys

• Several previous surveys on consumer attitudes about drinking water are separate from CCR surveys

• Focus groups have also been used


### • Studies (focus groups) conducted by EPA and AWWA as CCR regulation was being developed in 1998

• Other surveys/reports on drinking water quality

• “Scorecard” or “ranking” approach

• Proctor and Gamble

– 2007

• Environmental Working Group

# CCR Surveys

• Oswald and Hurd – 1998

• Surveyed 800 (split) before/after CCR

• After group
- more likely to have heard about WQ

• More satisfied with utility’s information efforts

• More satisfied with quality of their tap water

• Higher ratings for water utility


### • Clark et al – 2000

• Surveyed 50 utilities in six New England states

• Met the initial CCR requirements

• Frustrated with some of the required language

• Half contacted media before/after CCR mailing


### • Johnson – two studies in New Jersey

• Customers had trouble translating the ranges of detections and with health effects language

# Previous Water Research Foundation Study

• Stratus Consulting – 2004

• Understanding and Enhancing the Impact of Consumer Confidence Reports


### • Two “take - away” messages

• CCRs can and do have a positive impact on customers’ perception of, and attitudes toward their utility

• Room for improving use of CCR to communicate more effectively with customers


### • 38% of customers remember getting CCR

• Three phase model of CCR reading

• Initial sort

• Scanning

• Reading

# Small 2010 Survey

• Objective – a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of electronic distribution of CCRs

• Email alert sent to AWWA utility members

• 213 responses

• 58% served >10,000 people


### • Questions on email addresses (n=213)

• Method to obtain update?

• Yes

– 36% No

– 64%

• Percentage of customers with email addresses?

• None

– 31%

• <10%
- 39%

• 10

– 25%
- 18%

• >25%
- 14%

# More Questions from 2010 Survey

• Customers receive electronic information?

• None 46%

• <10% 35%

• 10

– 25% 10%

• >25% 9%


### • How do you get customer’s email addresses?

• Open acct./modify acct. info.

– 84% (n=147)

• E
- billing or electronic payment

– 48% (n=147)


### • Alternative electronic communication outside of email? (n=193)

• Website

– 98%

• User group

– 2%

# More Questions from 2010 Survey

• Assuming electronic + mail delivery, what percentage via email to be viable? (n=213)

• None 13%

• <10% 27%

• 10

– 25% 20%

• 25

– 50% 17%

• 50

– 75% 11%

• 75

– 100% 11%


### • 40% (84/213) would be willing to pilot test email delivery for a subset of their customers

# Ames, Iowa Pilot

• Population served – 50,029 retail plus approx. 9,000 wholesale

• Iowa State University

• Master meters on the dorms


### • Some complaints from group housing about getting multiple copies of CCR

• Electronic CCRs to students living in off campus university housing – 357 this year

• ISU registrar provides students’ email addresses


### • Utility would like to provide electronic notification who use e - billing

# York, PA Pilot

• York Water Co. serves 180,000 people

• 7,000 email addresses on file


### • 2010 Tap Tip campaign

• Communicate via email, text, and phone calls

• Collected 6,000 email addresses (10%)


### • Contract mailing of 2010 CCRs

• Contract firm cost $181.94 and took 10 minutes

• 5,194 emails delivered

• 1,822 (35%) opened the mail

• 207 (11%) clicked through to the CCR (4% of 5,194)

• 728 emails “bounced”


### • 2011 – Sent 7,264 emails with 515 bounces (6,749 delivered successfully)

# Phoenix, AZ Pilot

• Could not get a waiver for electronic delivery

• E - billing for 5,500 accounts

• Electronic newsletter had link to CCR and our survey

• 45 people clicked thru to get CCR and to our survey


### • Survey results for 45 people

• 66% (29) read their CCR

• Delivery?

• 11% (5) via mail

• 75% (33) via email by address provided to water utility

• 14% (6) via URL on Internet posting

# Larger 2011 Survey

• August 2011 electronic survey conducted by Knowledge Networks through the Water Industry Technical Action Fund (WITAF)

• Knowledge Networks has its own survey pool

• Better than typical self
- selection

• Targeted adults (18+) who are homeowners

• Survey posted on password
- protected web site

• No financial incentives for response rate enhancement


### • Pre - test prior to full survey

• 2,348 respondents to this survey

• 77.5% on community water system

• 17.1% on private well

• 5.3% didn’t know

# Respondents’ Demographics

• Age (n=2,348)

• 18 to 29

– 15.7%

• 30 to 44

– 24.2%

• 45 to 59

– 30.9%

• Over 60

– 29.1%


### • Education

• Less than high school

– 10.2%

• High school graduate

– 30.4%

• Some college

– 28.5%

• Bachelors degree or higher

– 30.8%


### • Race/Ethnicity

• White, Non
- Hispanic

– 75.6%

# More Demographics

• Gender (n=2,348)

• Male

– 48.5%, Female

– 51.5%


### • Head of household

• Yes

– 82%, No

– 18%


### • Housing type

• Single family detached

– 82.2%

• Single family attached

– 7.4%

• Apartment, mobile home, boat, RV

– 10.4%


### • MSA Status

• Metro

– 82%, Non
- Metro

– 18%


### • Household internet access

• Yes

– 80.1%, No

– 19.9%

# How Concerned Are You?

Not Concerned Not Very Concerned Somewhat Concerned Very Concerned Economy 0.6% 1.5% 20.7% 76.8% Transport. 5.4% 31.8% 44.3% 17.6% Air quality 3.7% 19.5% 47.8% 28.2% Drinking Water 5.0% 23.5% 38.5% 32.4%

n = 2,348

# More Survey Questions

• How important are drinking water issues to you? (n=2,348)

• Not important

– 2.4%

• Not very important

– 11.6%

• Somewhat important

– 40.6%

• Very important

– 44.9%


### • Do you recall getting a CCR from your utility in April, May, or June of this year? (n=2,348)

• Yes

– 37.3%

• No

– 62.4%


### • Past three years? (n=1,471)

• Yes

– 19.5%

• No

– 79.6%

# More Survey Questions

• Delivery with water bill or separate mailing/delivery? (n=1,163)

• Water bill

– 41.6%

• Separate

– 57.4%


### • What did you do with CCR? (n=1,163)

• Read thoroughly

– 22.3%

• Read some & skimmed the rest

– 19.7%

• Skimmed the entire CCR

– 22.7%

• Read only the headline that my drinking water met all of the regulations

– 9.6%

• Did not look at the report

– 5.1%

# How Well Do You Recall Information About?

Not at all Not very much Somewhat Very well Source 11.7% 36.9% 41.7% 9.4% Treatment 16.2% 37.5% 37.0% 8.5% Detections 17.3% 36.3% 38.1% 8.2% n = 1,163

# The Report Was...

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Important & worthwhile information 1.7% 4.2% 57.7% 35.4%
Easy to read & clear 2.7% 16.9% 53.0% 25.8% Understand able 2.1% 15.0% 53.8% 27.5% Stood out 5.1% 28.6% 46.2% 19.1% Looked professional 1.4% 7.9% 55.3% 33.9% Credible & believable 1.5% 4.3% 56.6% 35.6%
n = 1,163

# Confident and Useful

• Report made you feel confident

• Strongly disagree

• 3.9%


### • Somewhat disagree

• 12.0%


### • Somewhat agree

• 56.0%


### • Strongly agree

• 26.9% 

## • Useful in developing a better understanding

• Not useful at all

• 4.0%


### • Not very useful

• 14.2%


### • Somewhat useful

• 58.2%


### • Very useful

• 22.9% n = 1,163

# How Would Want to Access?

 50% recommended methods other than mail delivery of full CCR.

• Online at water utility website – 13.9%

• A postcard or other mailing – 12.5%

• Mailed to my residence – 49.2%

• Full CCR in major newspaper – 3.6%

• Newspaper notice reporting whether my water met all of the regulations – 3.5%

• Posted notice at water utility’s office – 1.1%

• Don’t want or don’t need – 15.5% n = 2,348

# Next Steps & Recommendations

• AWWA surveys and pilot tests will be written up for **Journal AWWA**

• Probable publication date is pending


### • Most utilities don’t want to maintain email addresses at this time

• Challenges in maintaining current email addresses

• Physical location of water meter is tied to physical address

• Blend of emails and paper mailings would be difficult to keep straight


### • URL on bill, bill insert, or postcard with website link to download CCR and phone number to call to request paper CCR is the preferred option

# Question and answer



# QUESTIONS?