COSTA MESA, Calif., May 9, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Consumer Confidence Reports, which are produced by all community water utilities in the United States to measure the quality of their drinking water, may not be giving a complete picture of end-consumer water quality. According to the J.D. Power 2018 Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Study,SM released today, 30% of residential water utility customers indicate they have water quality issues, a rate far higher than what has typically been reported in the Consumer Confidence Reports produced by local water authorities.
"While the mandated water quality reports produced by regional water authorities do a great job of measuring specific water quality issues, they are not telling the whole story when it comes to perceptions of the water that is coming out of customers' faucets," said Andrew Heath, Senior Director of the Utility Practice at J.D. Power. "Whether it's a serious problem like high lead or mineral counts, or a more subjective issue like bad taste or low pressure, a significant number of residential water utility customers are not happy with the product. Water utilities need to understand why customer views are not matching the views of the water utility and need to address these concerns."
Following are key findings of the 2018 study:
- Nearly one-third of customers report quality problems: Among the 30% of residential water utility customers who mention a quality problem, 12% cite low pressure; 11% cite bad taste; 8% cite scaling/water hardness; 8% cite discoloration; 6% cite bad smell; and 4% cite high lead/mineral content.
- Wide variation in customer perceptions of water quality: Significant differences across the nation are found from the best water utilities having less than 20% of their customers indicating a problem with water quality to many utilities having more than 40% of their customers citing a water quality problem. One utility has more than half of its customers reporting a water quality problem.
- Water quality problems sink customer satisfaction: Customers who experience water quality problems have significantly lower delivery satisfaction scores than those who experience no problems. Bad taste and scaling/water hardness are associated with 143-point declines (on a 1,000-point scale) in delivery satisfaction scores, while scaling/water hardness and bad smell are both associated with a 152-point decline.
- Communication is key when implementing upgrades: One of the most negative effects on satisfaction is a service interruption caused by pipeline work. Satisfaction scores are 42 points lower among those experiencing pipeline work-related service interruptions than those among customers who experience no interruptions. However, when customers have previously been made aware of water utility system upgrades, satisfaction scores are 58 points higher among those who experience no service interruptions.
- Frequent communication maximizes satisfaction: Customers who recall receiving four to five communications from their water utility have communications satisfaction scores that are 148 points higher than among those who do not recall receiving any direct communications.
- E-bill satisfaction higher than for paper bill: Billing and payment satisfaction among customers who receive their bill electronically is much higher than among those who receive a paper bill (796 vs. 758, respectively).
For more information, consumers concerned about water quality are encouraged to review the Consumer Confidence Report provided by their water utility at www.epa.gov/ccr.
Study Rankings by Region
The following utilities rank highest in customer satisfaction in their respective region:
- Midwest: Louisville Water and Saint Paul Regional Water Services (tie)
- Northeast: Boston Water and Sewer Commission and Monroe County Water Authority (tie)
- South: Gwinnett County
- West: Eastern Municipal Water District
The Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Study, now in its third year, measures satisfaction among residential customers of 88 water utilities, delivering water to a population of at least 400,000 people and is reported in four geographic regions: Midwest, Northeast, South and West. Overall satisfaction is measured by examining 33 attributes within six factors (listed in order of importance): delivery; price; conservation; billing and payment; communications; and customer service.
For more information about the Water Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction, visit http://www.jdpower.com/resource/us-water-utility-residential-customer-satisfaction-study.
See the online press release at http://www.jdpower.com/pr-id/2018059.
J.D. Power is a global leader in consumer insights, advisory services and data and analytics. These capabilities enable J.D. Power to help its clients drive customer satisfaction, growth and profitability. Established in 1968, J.D. Power is headquartered in Costa Mesa, Calif., and has offices serving North/South America, Asia Pacific and Europe. J.D. Power is a portfolio company of XIO Group, a global alternative investments and private equity firm headquartered in London, and is led by its four founders: Athene Li, Joseph Pacini, Murphy Qiao and Carsten Geyer.
Study Rankings
Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
(Based on a 1,000-point scale) |
|
Midwest Region |
|
Louisville Water |
730 |
Saint Paul Regional Water Services |
730 |
Missouri American Water |
729 |
City of Minneapolis |
728 |
Illinois American Water |
726 |
Indiana American Water |
726 |
Metropolitan Utilities District |
|
(Omaha) |
721 |
Aqua-Midwest |
717 |
Greater Cincinnati Water Works |
716 |
Citizens Energy Group |
715 |
Milwaukee Water Works |
706 |
Midwest Region Average |
702 |
City of Columbus |
700 |
Detroit Water Sewerage Dept |
686 |
KC Water Services |
677 |
City of Chicago |
675 |
City of Cleveland |
658 |
Northeast Region |
|
Boston Water and Sewer |
|
Commission |
735 |
Monroe County Water Authority |
735 |
Aqua-Northeast |
733 |
NYC Environment Protection |
730 |
Aquarion Water Company |
722 |
New Jersey American Water |
722 |
Regional Water Authority |
|
(Connecticut) |
711 |
WSSC |
709 |
Northeast Region Average |
709 |
Suffolk County |
708 |
New York American Water |
707 |
DC Water |
706 |
Pennsylvania American Water |
705 |
Philadelphia Water Department |
703 |
Suez (United Water) |
690 |
Erie County Water Authority |
669 |
City of Baltimore |
628 |
PGH20 |
605 |
Study Rankings
Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
(Based on a 1,000-point scale) |
|
South Region |
|
Gwinnett County |
757 |
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) |
756 |
The Cobb County Water System |
755 |
Miami-Dade County |
751 |
Aqua-South |
749 |
Baton Rouge Water Company |
738 |
San Antonio Water System |
731 |
Fairfax Water |
728 |
City of Raleigh |
724 |
Orange County Government Florida |
724 |
Charlotte Water |
722 |
JEA |
722 |
City of Dallas |
721 |
Metro Water Services (Nashville) |
720 |
City of Oklahoma City |
717 |
Manatee County |
716 |
South Region Average |
716 |
El Paso Water Utilities |
715 |
Jefferson Parish |
715 |
Palm Beach County |
715 |
City of Tampa |
714 |
City of Newport News |
712 |
City of Fort Worth |
708 |
City of Virginia Beach |
702 |
City of Houston |
697 |
MLGW |
694 |
Austin Water |
690 |
Tulsa Water |
680 |
City of Atlanta |
675 |
Pinellas County |
675 |
DeKalb County |
642 |
Birmingham Water Works |
639 |
Study Rankings
Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking |
|
(Based on a 1,000-point scale) |
|
West Region |
|
Eastern Municipal Water District |
741 |
Long Beach Water Dept |
737 |
Colorado Springs Utilities |
734 |
Denver Water |
734 |
SFPUC |
730 |
Golden State Water Company |
724 |
Anaheim Public Utilities |
723 |
Las Vegas Valley Water District |
720 |
Board of Water Supply (Honolulu) |
718 |
East Bay Municipal Utility District |
716 |
San Gabriel Valley Water Company |
715 |
California Water Service |
712 |
Portland Water Bureau |
712 |
Seattle Public Utilities |
712 |
Mesa Water Resources |
706 |
West Region Average |
706 |
California American Water |
705 |
City of Phoenix |
705 |
Tucson Water |
694 |
L.A. Dept. of Water & Power |
693 |
City of Sacramento |
688 |
Water Utility Authority |
|
(Albuquerque) |
688 |
San Jose Water Company |
685 |
City of San Diego |
666 |
City of Fresno |
661 |
Media Relations Contacts
Geno Effler; Costa Mesa, Calif.; 714-621-6224; [email protected]
John Roderick; St. James, N.Y.; 631-584-2200; [email protected]
About J.D. Power and Advertising/Promotional Rules www.jdpower.com/about-us/press-release-info
SOURCE J.D. Power
Related Links
WANT YOUR COMPANY'S NEWS FEATURED ON PRNEWSWIRE.COM?
Newsrooms &
Influencers
Digital Media
Outlets
Journalists
Opted In
Share this article