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 1st 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 offcampus 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?