Findings
B. Demand for Information About Drinking Water
What kinds of questions do you have about the safety of drinking
water?
A number of respondents said they want to know what is actually in their
water, what the allowable levels are, and risks associated with exceeding
these levels. They also want to know how the water is actually processed.
"Who works at the plant, and how often is the plant inspected?"
(Maryland respondent)
"I know I would like a way to test my water at home." (Maryland
respondent)
What is the single most important piece of information you
would like to know (or could use) about the safety of your drinking water?
Some respondents said they wanted to know the history of problems with
the water in the area, including recent problems and what steps are being
to correct violations.
"If they're either exceeding it or below, that's what I'd want
to know. I'd want to know what they're exceeding on and say, okay, this
is what they're doing good on, and this is what they're falling short
on. If they're meeting all the requirements, then that's not really necessary
for me to know."
Others simply said they wanted to know a cut-and-dry answer about their
general water safety; one Tacoma woman said, "I just want to know,
is it safe to drink?"
What types of information about drinking water do you think
you should be provided with?
Opinion on this varied: some respondents wanted to have a report every
month of levels of impurities in their water along with maximum contaminant
levels and ideal contaminant levels. Others wanted to know only if a violation
had occurred, or a significant increase in a contaminant. They felt that
letting them know about increases would serve as a "flag" that a problem
could occur, and would establish trust that someone is monitoring the
condition and trying to remedy a situation before it becomes a problem.
Would you assume your water was safe until it violated a standard?
Most respondents said they expect drinking water to be safe (i.e., within
allowable limits) at all times. If a violation occurred, they would expect
to be informed about it immediately via news or notice, with an explanation
of what that violation means to them. Several people said they would also
want to be provided with the means to obtain further, more technical information
beyond the preliminary notice.
Does it matter who sets the standards about water safety?
A number of respondents said that they expect water safety standards
to be the same throughout the United States, and those standards should
be set by individuals who have no vested interest in a particular water
system. As such, several people said that local authorities should not
set standards; it should be overseen by a national entity, with power
to enforce or penalize, such as the EPA.
If there was a violation of drinking water safety standards
by your local water system, how and when would you expect to receive this
information?
How much information would you want?
The majority of respondents said they would want to know about violations
immediately -- "The minute the plant finds out." Most said they
would expect to hear about violations through the media, such as television
or radio. However, a few said they would want to hear about it some other
way, such as by telephone or posted notice.
In terms of amount of information they would like to find out initially
after a violation, most people's concerns were connected to what action
they need to take or restrictions they need to place on their water usage.
"[I'd want to know] if it's safe to drink. That's the main thing;
safe to cook with." (Maryland respondent)
Would it matter what this violation was for?
Some respondents said the type of violation is a factor for them in
terms of urgency for "need to know." For example, when asked whether she
would want to know about a lead violation versus a parasite violation,
a Maryland woman responded "I'd rather know about the parasite. That'd
be a little more scary." When asked about one causing immediate intestinal
problems versus long-term effects such as cancer, she responded that both
possibilities are equally threatening and she would want to know about
both of those problems.
Other respondents said the type of violation is not a factor for them;
they would expect to know about any violation immediately. If the danger
is not immediate (e.g., intestinal illness), long-term effects would be
an issue of major concern. Respondents said they would not want to drink
any water as long as there are any potential risks associated with it.
What if your water system wasn't monitoring for (i.e., testing
for) something that it was supposed to?
Many participants felt that if water is contaminated, or if something
was discovered that water systems had not been testing for, then
"someone is not doing their jobs." Respondents generally felt that
there is an issue of trust between provider and consumer; even those individuals
who do not drink plain tap water still use it in some form, and rely on
the safety of their water.
Example of nitrate violation. What message would you
think this is trying to get across? Would you be alarmed? Would reading
this cause you to do anything differently?
Most respondents who read the sample nitrate violation said they would
be alarmed, to the extent that they would not drink the water themselves
even though they were excluded as a risk category. A number of people
said that they would buy bottled water. People said they would ask for
more information about how and why the violation occurred, as well as
the actual levels of nitrate and how much they exceeded safety standards.
Participants were particularly uncertain about the wording "not a concern
for most people" and where they fit in. Suggestions included being more
specific about possible effects and at-risk populations and specific conditions.
However, they were often unsure if clearer language would reassure them
about possible risks.
"I think I'd just go get bottled water. I wouldn't take the chance.
You've only got one life." (Tacoma respondent)
"I would buy my water." (Maryland respondent)
"I think the thing that stands out to me on this is, if water isn't
suitable for infants or pregnant women, shouldn't it be unsuitable for
everyone? Why should we say we can drink this water that has nitrate in
it? I wouldn't drink it." (Sioux Falls respondent)
"What is nitrate and where does it come from and how did it get
in there?" (Tacoma respondent)
However, some respondents said that they would believe the notice; they
would not give it to children or elderly persons, but would continue to
drink it themselves. They trusted the wording and the message being delivered.
"If they sent out this notice, saying that it's suitable for those
who are older than six months, they probably know what they're doing."
(Tacoma respondent)
What issues might you be concerned with regarding your children
and other sensitive people (e.g., the elderly or cancer patients)?
Respondents often had the knowledge that children or the elderly are
more susceptible to illness than other individuals. "Anyone with a
worse immune system" was something that was listed as an area of
concern. People who had young children in particular were concerned about
the potential risks their children may be exposed to, and said this would
make them more likely to pay attention to warnings or information distributed
to them.
However, another opinion often heard was that what may be a risk to
children or the elderly may also pose an undiscovered risk for people
with average immune systems, as was touched on above when participants
viewed the sample nitrate warning. A number of people said they would
take the same precautions for themselves as for their children, for example,
if there was a warning about water quality. Please refer to the section
in this report regarding nitrate warnings for illustrations.
Utilities and banks, among others, often send us extra materials
with our bills to communicate information that they think is important
for us to read. Have you seen these kinds of things? Under what circumstances
would you be likely to read something like that? Not likely?
Whereas some participants said they read everything they receive with
their bills, others said they do not read information unless it is eyecatching
or relevant to them in some meaningful way; the bulk of it they consider
to be "junk mail" and an annoyance. They will read materials sent through
the mail if they contain wording such as "important document" or have
some official identification to make it distinct from other pieces of
mail and/or directly relevant or important to them.
How Can EPA Present Information in
a More Meaningful Way?
|
