Minnesota CCR Pilot Study

July 11, 2012

Minnesota Department of Health

Drinking Water Protection
CCR Piloting Objectives

• Meet SDWA requirements: Distribute CCR

• Seek methods that are more or equally effective in com

CCR information

• Familiarize residents with utility/community website

• Make CCR more accessible to the public

• Waste and cost reduction ‐ paper/printing/postage• Evaluate/provide data supporting CCR Rule revision
Utility Participation

• Community Community Public Water Systems Systems (CPWSs) (CPWSs) serving serving 

population of 10,000 or greater

• Cost saving incentive – systems are required by th

Rule to individually distribute a paper copy CCR to 

customers

• Coordinate Coordinate with MDH on delivery delivery method & timel

timel

• Assist MDH with post‐CCR‐delivery survey

• MDH provides p g osta e‐paid survey mailers to be r

distributed by CPWSs to customers

• Postcard surveys returned to MDH for evaluation/
Timeline for Year One

October 2011 October 2011 ‐

December 2011

January 2012 ‐

May 2012

May 1, 2012 ‐June 30 , 2012

June 1, 2012 ‐July 31 , 2012

MDH to soli i c t f h d d b

participation from

86 CPWSs serving a

population of10,000/greater

CPWSs to notifyMDH of their intent

to participate and

method of delivery

MDH to host group

meetings, preparesystem‐specific CCR,postcard notice forPWSs review/approval

MDH provides post‐

CCR‐delivery surveymailers to PWSs

CPWSs to distributesurvey mailers with

3 weeks of CCRdelivery/posting

CPWSs toselect/describedelivery methodwith cost‐saving

MDH design/print thepost‐CCR‐deliverysurvey mailers:

Yellow: Web CCR Notice

Survey mailers arecolor‐coded for eachmethod group; to bereturned as postage‐

MDH to collect

returned surveys ancompile results andfindings

estimate Blue: traditional

Green: email/e‐bill

paid postcards
Delivery Method Options

• 1) CCR Web‐posting Notice using: postcard, newsletter, 

or bill stuffer

– Going green, web‐posting instead of mailing hard copy– Internet Internet address address of the CCR e‐posting posting website website

– Contact for paper copy CCR requests

– Note applicable violation(s), A.L. exceedance, SDWA comp

• 2) Email, e‐bill, other forms of electronic delivery

– Residents to confirm the receipt of CCR e‐Notice– Webpage counter– Housing office to release CCR to student/renter’s e‐accoun

• 3) Traditional delivery
Are We Ready?

• 80 participants from 86 CPWSs invited to participate

– Traditional: 38– CCR Notice using postcard/newsletter/bill insert: 36

• Estimated average saving per system = $3,311• Estimated saving for PWS ranging from $250 to 

– Electronic delivery combined with other methods: 6

• Estimated average saving per system = $2,429• Estimated saving for PWS ranging from $0 to $1

• An internet search of the 2010 CCR/Water Quality Report

– F d oun CCR web‐postings of all 86 systems

– E‐delivery capability: e‐account set up, e‐bill, e‐notice

– Outreach capabilities: twitter, Facebook, city/utility blogs
Example of a Postcard Postcard Notic

2011 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

City of Lit ex ng on, PWSID 1020032 1020032

Dear Customers,In an effort to Go Green your community water supply is now posting t

Drinking Water Report (CCR) on the web in lieu of sending the repot to 

mail.

• In 2011 your public water supply exceeded the lead action level

• Optional  ‐ In 2011 no contaminants were detected at levels that vio

federal drinking water standards

Please go to: www.webaddresshere.com to view the CCR or annual wa

report. You can also contact XXX/XXX‐XXXX to request a paper copy of 
Example Example of a Bill‐insert Not

SPRWS meets all standards for drinking water quality. To read water quality quality report, go to www stpaul gov/waterquality www.stpaul.gov/waterquality . In 

'go green,' paper copies are only available upon request at 65

• SPRWS satisface satisface todos los estándares estándares de calidad calidad de agua po

po

favor diríjase a www .stpaul.gov/waterquality para leer el re

completo de calidad del agua. Copias en papeldel reporte so

están disponibles llamando al 651‐266‐6350.

• SPRWS waxay la kulantaa dhamaan heerarka u dagsan tayad

cabo. Si aad u akhrisid dhamaan warbixinta ku saabsan taya

www .stpaul.gov/waterquality. Waxaa la heli karaa koobiyad

marka laga codsado codsado tel . 651‐266‐6350.

• SPRWS ua tau zoo raws li tag nrho cov quag ntawm dej zoo 

nyeem tsab ntawv ceeb toom tag nrho txog dej zoo haus, m

.stpaul.gov/waterquality. Tsuas muaj cov ntawv luam tawm 

ntawm 651‐266‐6350.
Post‐CCR‐Delivery Survey

• Ad s e ed ministered by MDH

– MDH provides postage‐paid survey mailers to P– PWSs distribute mailers to a number of random 

customers, within 3 weeks of distributing the C

– Postage‐paid surveys to be returned to MDH

• 6000 mailers sent, aiming for 95% statistical

significant confidence level (assume 30% retur

• C l o or‐cod de for meth do used, with 6 question

• Tear‐off alone dotted line, mail back to MDH a

postage‐paid postcards


Preliminary Results Results on CCR Deli

Deli

Q1 ‐ CCR/CCR Notification Notification Received Received

(N = 585)

E‐mail/E‐bill

notification

3% Not sure

Did not Receive

26%

Newsletter/bill

30%

insert/postcard

16%

Paper CCR

25%
CCR or Notification Received by Color Code

(N= 585)

Yellow‐CCR URL Blue‐Paper CCR Green‐email/ebill

24

52

70

40

9

24

87

22

9 70

4

61

51

2

13

E‐mail/E‐bill /

notification

Newsletter/bill

insert/postcard

Paper CCR Not sure Di
Preliminary Results on Reade

Reade

Q2‐ CCR Readership (N = 435)

Skim thru it

Q2 CCR Readership (N 435)

Skim thru it

33%

Dispose w/o rea

Read the CCR

21%

p / 

9%

N/A

37%
Readership by Color Codes

(n = 435)

Yellow‐CCR URL Blue‐Paper CCR Green‐email/ebill

52

34

15

31

40

60

89

37

52

11

15

12

38

16

Read the CCR Skim thru it Dispose w/o reading N/A
Preliminary Results on Comprehe

Q3 Was CCR Clear & Understandable?

(N = 435)

Yes

47%

N/A

41%

No

12%
Preliminary Preliminary Results Results on e‐Bill 

E‐Bill Option vs. Use (n = 585)

Q4 Q5

305

259

145 135

173

Yes No Not su
Q4: Is E‐Bill Option Available? (n = 585)

Yellow‐CCR URL Blue‐Paper CCR Green‐email/ebill

122107 86 85

76

50 39

9 11

Yes No Not sure

Q5: Will You View/Access CCR via E‐Bill?

110

Yellow‐CCR URL Blue‐Paper CCR Green‐email/ebill

100 85 93

49 68 48

20

12

85

Yes No Not sure
Preliminary Results on Prefer

Prefer

Q6 ‐ Preferred CCR Delivery Method

(N 689)

Community

= 689)

Paper CCR

44%

newsletter/

local paper

10%

CCR URL via 

E‐mail/E‐bill or bill insert

insert

11%

E mail/E bill

notification

34%
350

Preferred Delivery Method by Color Codes

(N = 689)

28

250300

111

111

150200

92

167

21

34

14 

50

100

44 

0

URL Notice via postcard

or bill insert/stuffer

E‐mail/E‐bill notification Paper CCR Co

newslet

Yellow‐CCR URL Blue‐Paper CCR Green‐email/ebill
Descriptive Responses from Q

Pref d erre Delivery Meth do s

E‐CCR/Web CCR/Web Posting Posting Paper CCR

• I have no PC, do rea

that come thru mail

• Prefer the cheapest method

• Email or ebill notification if it is

• I have auto pay but 

• I receive ebill but of

read notices attache

Email or ebill notification if it is

labeled VERY CLEARLY

• Would be happy to click a link

when paying bill on‐line

• More likely to read i

with items of intere

community fun even

• Emails is too easy to 

• I want to know that my water

is safe; won't spend much time

on it unless there is a problem

• Stop spending money on • Emails is too easy to 

• Attach to utility bill/

• It’s adequate the wa

more electronics!

• Stop spending money on

useless paper work!

• Use web, Facebook, twitters,

and other social media! more electronics! and other social media!
E‐Delivery vs. Traditional Traditional

Did not

142 "Green" Survey Cards Returned 165 "Blue" Survey Card

E‐mail/E‐bill

notification

9%

Did not

Receive

31%

Not sure

24%

Did no

Receiv

19%

Newsletter

Bill‐insert

Postcard

6%

Not sure

37%

Paper CCR

6% 43%

Paper CCR

17%
E‐Delivery vs. Traditional Traditional

Paper CCR Readership 

E‐mail/E‐bill Readership

Read the 

Skim thru it

32%

(n = 142)

Read the

CCR

28%

Read the 

CCR

15%

Dispose

w/o reading

N/A 12% N/A

41% 25%
E‐Delivery vs. Traditional Traditional

Preferred Delivery Method Preferred Preferred Delivery Delivery M

(n = 203)

Preferred Delivery Method

(n = 157)

Paper CCR

18%

Community

newsletter‐

local paper

2%

Paper CCR

55%

Notification

E‐mail/E‐bill

notification

by postcard

or bill insert

9%

71%