Water Utility Customers Cite Many More Quality Issues than EPA Reports Indicate, J.D. Power Finds
Water Utility Customers Cite Many More Quality Issues than EPA Reports Indicate, J.D. Power Finds
30% of Water Utility Customers Report Water Quality Problems, Including Bad Taste, Discoloration and Scaling/Hardness
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; media.relations@jdpa.com
John Roderick; St. James, N.Y.; 631-584-2200; john@jroderick.com
About J.D. Power and Advertising/Promotional Rules www.jdpower.com/about-us/press-release-info
View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/water-utility-customers-cite-many-more-quality-issues-than-epa-reports-indicate-jd-power-finds-300642909.html
SOURCE J.D. Power
