Consumer Feedback Focus Group Results:

Executive Summary

I. Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with Macro International, Inc. to conduct a series of focus groups and interviews to assess consumer opinions about their drinking water safety, and to test materials designed to provide the general public with information about their water. The focus groups and interviews asked the following questions of consumers:

• What do people know about their drinking water?
• What do they think they know about their drinking water?
• What would they like to know about their drinking water?
• Where would they go to get information about drinking water?
• How can EPA present data in a meaningful way?
• How can EPA get the public more involved? How is EPA doing?

The focus groups also gauged reactions to various formats for presenting information. Respondents were shown a nitrate violation notice, samples of Envirofacts reports for several U.S. cities, samples of ICR reports (Atlanta respondents only), samples of CCR brochures for two U.S. cities, and excerpts from the information booklet "Water on Tap."

Use of water varied among participants, and sometimes showed a trend among cities. For example, a number of Washington, DC respondents reported either boiling their water or purchasing bottled water. They said that this was due to past problems in their water system, a strong taste and/or smell of chlorine, or appearance of the water. Other respondents reported using filters for their tap water, particularly for drinking purposes. In general, many respondents across all regions observed equated taste, appearance, and smell of their water with safety.

Knowledge of laws about drinking water safety was little to none. Respondents knew that such laws must exist, but they did not know the content of those laws. They also did not have any understanding of who creates the laws, or who enforces them.

Most participants said they know that there are contaminants in their water, however very few individuals were able to specify particular contaminant(s). There was also general awareness that water undergoes a treatment process, that chemicals are added, and that their water comes from some kind of source. However, very few respondents knew specific treatment processes, what chemicals are added to water and why, or the exact source of their drinking water. There was an expressed interest in having this kind of information, particularly among mothers of young children; however a few individuals said they did not feel a need to know about their drinking water treatment unless there is an immediate health concern.

Many participants said they had not thought about how to get information regarding their water quality, and did not know where to begin the process. Some said they would contact their water company for information. Others cited various health departments, looking up numbers in the telephone book under "water," or calling county extension offices. In general, there seemed to be confusion about who to call and what questions to ask. Apartment dwellers were especially impacted; many do not receive a water bill and may not even know the name of their water company.

Participants expressed some distrust of water companies in reporting the data. They felt that a more believable authority would be a group or agency with no vested interest in the outcomes (e.g., negative public reaction) to reporting water problems. Some felt that as long as the quality of the scientific analysis of contaminants is preserved and of high standard, it will be credible to the general public.

Response to the nitrate violation was almost universal, sparking a great deal of concern. Participants said that they would not give the water to their families, nor would they drink it personally; they would instead opt to buy bottled water. Participants also felt the need for further explanation about the nature of the violation (e.g., what is nitrate and why did this happen), steps being taken to correct the problem, and what would be done to prevent any future problems.

Participants showed a strong preference to materials with clear definitions, charts, and explanations. They also valued brevity and conciseness. When viewing the two versions of the CCR, participants sometimes favored the shorter WSSC report to the full-color Denver report. Other preferred the Denver report because of its use of pictures to illustrate its points, and its eye-catching appeal. Participants liked the definitions of terms provided in the CCR, as well as the explanation of the purification process, but found many scientific abbreviations or measurements confusing. While some appreciated a longer chart, as shown in the WSSC report, many were intimidated by the extensive list of contaminants.

The Atlanta participants reacted to the ICR report with some criticism. Most individuals found the introduction easy to read and understand, however the remainder of the report was confusing, or "geared towards scientists." They recommended creating clear, color coded bar graphs and simplifying the language and terms used in the report.

The Envirofacts report also met with some criticism. Common complaints were that terms or abbreviations were not defined, violation numbers were not explained or put into context, and contaminant levels were not given. Respondents said they would want to be able to obtain this information, but it needs to be put into a more consumer-friendly format. The Internet was used by many people, and some said they would seek out information similar to the Envirofacts data, but a number of people said it would not have occurred to them to use the Internet to research information about their drinking water safety. Many respondents felt that the Internet should be used to provide information to consumers, but it should be only one method among many to deliver information.

Participants in the focus groups and interviews said they would want to receive information through the media, as well as by mail. Recommendations for media coverage included providing updates on television news of drinking water quality, along with pollen counts or flu reports. Other ideas included raising consumer awareness through special reports on television news shows such as "20/20", "Dateline" or "Primetime."

While the EPA met with some criticism because of participants' feelings that the EPA has historically been slow to react to environmental issues, many people expressed interest in finding out what the agency is doing to promote a clean environment on a local and national level. They felt that the EPA's role is to provide information to the people, to promote general awareness, and to ensure that their drinking water is truly safe.

For the most part, the information provided to participants either changed or reinforced pre-existing concepts about the safety of their drinking water. While some said they were reassured knowing that standards are being set and enforced, others were disturbed by information about violations or potential contaminants in their water.

Many participants did not exhibit any desire to become involved in any activities related to protecting their drinking water; they simply want to know that their water is clean and safe to drink. Others said they might become involved if there was a problem with their drinking water. Although participants were recruited as "involved" and "uninvolved," referring to the level of activity they had in community organizations in general, there was no discernible difference among participants based upon these recruiting criteria. Several individuals, however, said they would conduct personal research on the subject upon leaving the focus group, and might even volunteer. These individuals were usually parents of young children, who said they felt a need to improve the environment for their children.

Statement of Purpose/Objectives

Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Links | Office of Water | En Español | Questions and Answers

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us