Background
CRW-Clairmont and CRW-Clackamas were told several years ago to send out separate CCRs to its customers in order to make the information presented more clear to the consumer.
CRW has never complied.

The benefits of one-mailer for two water systems that have very different water qualities and sourcings are purely financial and logistical. Since the two different water systems are administrated by the same entity, there is a cost-savings benefit to creating and issuing one CCR.

However, this creates another layer of confusion to the consumer. The consumer must consult the map and read the explanation of which WS provides their water to then be able to interpret the CCRs data.

While this is unfortunate, CRW insists sending out one CCR every year. And there is nothing in the OAR nor the EPA Guidance that requires the CCRs to be separate.--ActionNeeded=No more action needed.

As long as the map and the explanation is clear, there is no need to continue asking CRW to send out two different CCRs ACTION NEEDED: No more action needed.

As long as the map and the explanation is clear, there is no need to continue asking CRW to send out two different CCRs.