FirstAlerts

Four Mile Hill Public Facilities Board in Searcy Failed Required Treatment Technique

The EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System records a drinking water violation for a water system serving Searcy, Arkansas.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 1:39 p.m. ET
The water system, serving 4,877 people in , Arkansas, , according to records in the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System. The event status is currently open and developing. The EPA categorized the issue under Tier 2 public notice, requiring the system to inform its customers within 30 days. The record shows no return to compliance for this violation, though it may have been resolved since without the record being updated. The violation period began on April 30, 2026, under rule family 350 and contaminant code for public water system .

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 17:39current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.