Findings
C. How can EPA present data in a more meaningful way?
What kind of information would you like to have in an information
piece (e.g., a brochure or report) to help educate people on the quality
of your drinking water? What would make it likely you would pick it up
and read it?
A number of people said they wanted to be provided with as much information
as possible about the current status of their drinking water (e.g., contaminant
levels and how to interpret them), how water is treated and what is "added"
or removed, where it comes from, and what is being done to improve the
overall quality of their water.
"I would want to know the mercury content, lead content, and probably
the biological content; what kind of condition the water's in. And how
those [levels] stand up to whatever the standards are." (Sioux Falls respondent)
"I've heard somewhere that -- well, we all know there's fluoride
in the water. But isn't there a certain level where it becomes harmful?"
(Tacoma respondent)
"Once they get it from the source, how do they treat it so we can
drink it. I mean, if we're getting our water out of the Sioux River, what
are they doing to it to make it safe because I certainly wouldn't drink
it right out." (Sioux Falls respondent)
There was also a segment of respondents who indicated they would not
be interested in hearing any information unless it has direct, immediate
relevance to their personal situation. They also said they would be more
inclined to get information from the media (e.g., television or radio
reports) than to look at brochures enclosed with their water bills, for
example.
Participants in a focus group in Sioux Falls complained about the quantity
of "junk mail" they receive with their mail, including pamphlets enclosed
with utility bills that are not particularly interesting to them. A number
of participants said they would definitely be interested in reading an
informational brochure on water quality, however they would need to have
a "flag" to let them know such a brochure was in their mail. For example,
one participant suggested adding a line, "See important health information
enclosed" next to the "total due" box on the water bill, where everyone
will look. Others suggested putting a notice on the front of the envelope.
"Junk mail, there's too much junk mail every day. It would have
to be something that said 'Please Read,' or 'Some Important Information
About Your Water'." (Sioux Falls respondent)
Reactions to ICR drinking water data:
Participants in Atlanta, who viewed the ICR data, generally had difficulty
reading and understanding much of the ICR report.
"This is technical. To an extent that nobody is going to understand
what the heck is going on. If I was some type of scientist, if I was some
type of biologist..."
Participants said they would not understand why they were receiving
the report.
"I'd want to know, why are we getting all this?"
Participants also said they were not motivated to read the chart in
depth to interpret the data, due to its complexity.
"I'd have no interest [in the chart]. It just looks like it's high.
You know what, it just doesn't make a lot of sense."
Instead, participants recommended putting the ICR data into a format
that would more directly relate to the individual, average consumer.
"What I want to know is does it directly affect me, so I'm in Fulton
County and my water comes from Fulton County Water Plant. I want to know
what's going on in there, if there is a problem, how is it being treated,
and what we can do to make it better."
"I guess I'd want to know when it got to a dangerous level. I don't
know if they need to tell us how they do it."
In particular, they found the scientific terminology and lack of an
explanation in "layman's terms" made the information extremely challenging.
One focus group suggested creating a color bar graph to indicate contaminant
levels for key contaminants. They said this method would allow them to
visualize existing contaminant levels versus allowed standards.
"They need to put it in layman's terms, saying your water plant
has exceeded the level recommended by whoever."
"Like maybe red, green -- maybe like green is a good zone, yellow
is a caution zone, red is danger, and then where the water is."
Reactions to Envirofacts safe drinking water report(s):
What message do you get from the Envirofacts report? Does one
city look different to you? Do any violation types stand out? If all violations
are in the past, how confident are you that your drinking water is safe
today and will be in the future?
The Envirofacts safe drinking water reports met with varied reactions
by respondents. Some said they liked the level of detail, specifically
the listing of violations in their area and corrective action. However,
many found the report confusing because of the use of undefined acronyms,
unspecified maximum contaminant levels, and unspecified level of contaminant
actually measured. Terms such as "turbidity" were also not defined and
confusing to readers. The presence of violation numbers, and lack of explanation
about specific violations and actions of contaminants, was also a source
of frustration.
"I don't care about what violation number it is. I mean, I'd like
to know when it was, what's the contaminant, what does it do, why is it
bad for you." (Atlanta respondent)
Several participants thought the Envirofacts information was confusing,
geared toward people with a scientific or environmental background, and
needed interpretation. Some people suggested that the Envirofacts information
be provided as a supplement to text-based information, instead of as a
stand-alone document.
A number of individuals, when confronted with a long list of violations,
particularly in their area, grew alarmed or upset by the information and
indicated the violations caused them to think their water is unsafe or
"dirty." Other respondents said that, even if the contaminants were harmless,
simply knowing that contaminants had been found in the water would dissuade
them from drinking it.
"If I knew they found -- if I knew they found different [contaminants]
in there, I don't think I'd want to drink it. Now I'm not saying that
these will hurt me or anything. But just knowing it...." (Washington,
DC respondent)
The Envirofacts report is available over the Internet for drinking
water systems throughout the U.S. Do you think that the Internet is an
appropriate place to disseminate information on drinking water? Why?
A number of respondents said they use the Internet and might look at
the site if they knew how to find it, but it would take more effort than
the average person would want to expend. An equal or greater number said
they do not have access to the Internet. Almost all participants felt
that, while the site is a good idea and a more in-depth source of information
that should be provided for people, the Internet is only one of many mediums
that should be used to communicate important information.
"I don't think it should be just the Internet. There are too many
people who don't have computers." (Atlanta respondent)
Reactions to the Consumer Confidence Report:
Respondents were shown two different versions of the Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR): one from Denver, Colorado, and one from the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission (WSSC) in suburban Prince George's and Montgomery
Counties in Maryland.
Reactions to the formats of the brochures was divided along two lines.
One segment of the respondents strongly preferred the glossy, full color
layout of the Denver CCR. The other segment preferred the WSSC brochure,
mainly because it was "more straightforward." Some of the respondents
who favored the WSSC report felt that the Denver report looked too slick.
What in particular do you like about the CCR? Dislike?
When asked about preferences for chart style, most respondents said
they liked the Denver layout because it is "easier to read" -- even respondents
who had favored the WSSC report overall. However, because the WSSC list
of contaminants tested for was more extensive, some participants felt
that WSSC is testing for more contaminants than Denver. In general, some
participants were confused by the units of measurement used in the chart
(e.g., "parts per billion").
"That wouldn't really tell me much. I guess that's some kind of
measurements they'll measure it by. But it wouldn't really tell me much.[...]
Just put some little footnotes or something on here." (Washington, DC
respondent)
Participants in a focus group in Sioux Falls also expressed confusion
about the notice informing them about filters and bottled water:
"The note at the bottom is making me wonder, even more, if this
level of contaminants is okay and its okay to drink tap water, then why
is it necessary that we have filters and stuff on the market? Is this
a bunch of hype or is the water safe?" (Sioux Falls respondent)
Many respondents said they particularly liked the definitions given
in the CCR. Other said they appreciated the explanation of the process
used to treat water.
"I like how they tell you how the water's treated." (Sioux Falls
respondent)
"Explanations of what some of the things are. For instance, the
definitions down in the right hand corner. Those let me know what they're
trying to say as far as parts per million, parts per billion, and all
of that." (Maryland respondent)
If a report like the CCR was included in your water bill, would
you read it?
Most respondents said they would at least look at a CCR if it was included
in their water bill, while a large number said they would pay close attention
to the information provided in it, even if they didn't understand everything.
"I would read the whole paper. I might not understand it. But I
would read it." (Washington, DC respondent)
However, some individuals said they might lose interest in the CCR if
it was included in every statement -- they recommended alternating months
between issuing the report, or providing an annual report, unless a problem
had been discovered with the water.
Other respondents who do not actually receive their water bill (e.g.,
apartment dwellers) expressed great interest in receiving the report by
some other means. Some respondents who live in the suburban area covered
by the WSSC said they had never seen the report specifically for this
reason.
Let's say we wanted to make sure you would get this information,
but we wanted to put it in a format that was more friendly to consumers.
How else can you imagine this type of information being presented? What
format would make it most likely that you would actually read it, if any?
Repeatedly, participants said the best way for getting information about
water contaminant levels is through the mass media, either in the form
of bulletins or regular updates.
"If there's something serious, they'll tell us on the news that
our weather system is bad."
A group in Atlanta voiced an idea which was heard from many other individuals
across the country.
"Like on cable, where you have the news station and they talk about
the weather forecast, why couldn't the talk about the water on those kinds
of stations? Do you know what I'm talking about? Like the pollen count."
A focus group in Maryland echoed this idea.
"I would suggest -- we have local air quality indexes, we could
have water quality indexes as well through the media, which reaches the
most people."
Other respondents agreed that information should be provided in the
water bill, in order to provide a more detailed report of water quality.
"I think, pretty much, in the water bill would be the perfect place.
Put the information in your water bill, and if people are interested in
reading that, then they can, and the people who aren't can toss it. But
they have to tell the people who are drinking the water, what the reports
were last month or if there's any risks or violations in the previous
month for people who are interested." (Atlanta respondent)
Who should be responsible for providing this information to
you? (local utility company, the government, environmental organization,
your doctor) Why? (probe for perceived trust levels)
While most participants said they might expect to get information about
water quality from their water company, the issue of reliability and credibility
was also discussed. Some participants felt that if violations were found,
that could be interpreted as error on the part of the water company. This
in turn might lead the water company to misinform or "pad" the truth from
the public.
"You've always got that group in government who's trying to protect
themselves. They've made a mistake and now they're trying to protect themselves,
and they don't always tell the truth. You see that all the time in different
phases of government. So, with the WSSC it would be the same sort of thing.
I'm afraid they would be lying to you, just like any corporation would
be. They don't always tell the truth because they're protecting themselves."
(Washington, DC respondent)
In general, most participants felt that these concerns would be alleviated
if they were provided assurance that accurate, reliable testing is being
conducted on a regular basis by scientists. Providing neutral third parties,
such as an independent lab, to conduct the tests was one suggestion for
resolving consumers' fears. The concept of an overseeing agency, such
as the EPA, also provided reassurance.
"I would rather go to the EPA, hoping that the government would
expose any problems that the WSSC might have because they have no interest
in WSSC, I hope."
Would you be interested in information on a national level
about drinking water? On a state level? On a local level (i.e., your water
utility)? On the source level (i.e., lake, river, well)? Is there one
you are especially interested in?
Most respondents who answered this question indicated they might be
vaguely interested in information on a national level, but would be most
likely to read information pertaining to their own drinking water. Some
respondents expressed interest in hearing information on a regional basis,
while others said they would be interested in hearing about activities
or areas of concern that might be going on in their community that might
directly impact them.
Response to "Water on Tap" booklet -- information on why EPA
allows contaminants, and how does EPA set drinking water standards. Do
these sections make sense? What are they telling you? Does reading this
information change the way you understand the data we just looked at?
The specific sections about contaminants and standards for these contaminants
were generally understood and well received. Some participants said they
were reassured by the information that most contaminants are harmless
or even help improve the taste of drinking water.
"Like they said, it would wash throughout, it goes throughout the
system and it probably won't have any effect on our body, which is interesting.
I'm glad to hear that." (Washington, DC respondent)
However, some of the statements caused disagreement or confusion. One
individual in Tacoma expressed confusion over the concept that some contaminants
may improve the taste of drinking water. A woman in Maryland disagreed
with the statement about cost implications and lack of a harmful effect
by contaminants; she wanted everything removed from her water.
"Who cares, you know? I mean cost, the thing about cost. Who's
to say what hurts you won't hurt me. Get them all out."
Some participants said that, while they understood what the segments
of text were saying, the information did not affect their concerns sparked
by the nitrate warning and the CCR. One Atlanta respondent did not feel
comfortable with figures based on lifetime exposure.
"No, I don't think it changes what I thought of the graph and the
other information. [...] Sometimes when I read a little, I worry more.
I begin to wonder, you know, why am I putting my life in the hands of
somebody who is a bean counter? [...] I don't think I like the fact that
a lot of these figures are based on lifetime exposure. I think they should
be considerably narrowed, in my opinion." (Atlanta respondent)
It should be noted that some participants, upon receiving the full booklet
at the end of the session, were very enthusiastic about the level of information
provided and the credibility of the source.
"I love this book. I mean it will help me out with anything I'm
looking for. It answered my own question. 'What is that?' And there it
is sitting right in front of me. I like this type of book, this is more
detailed, it explains a lot more and this is from the National Drinking
Water Advisory." (Tacoma respondent)
How
Can EPA Get Customers More Involved? How is EPA Doing?
|
