logo
For millions in US mobile home parks, clean and safe tap water isn't a given

For millions in US mobile home parks, clean and safe tap water isn't a given

The worst water Colt Smith has seen in 14 years with Utah's Division of Drinking Water was at a mobile home park, where residents had been drinking it for years before state officials discovered the contamination.
The well water carried cancer-causing arsenic as much as 10 times the federal limit. Smith had to put the rural park under a do-not-drink order that lasted nearly 10 years.
'The Health Department refers it to us like ... 'Why aren't you guys regulating it?' We had no idea it existed,' he said.
More than 50 years after the
Safe Drinking Water Act
was passed to ensure that Americans' water is free from harmful bacteria, lead and other dangerous substances, millions of people living in mobile home parks can't always count on those basic protections.
A
review by The Associated Press
found that nearly 70% of mobile home parks running their own water systems violated safe drinking water rules in the past five years, a higher rate than utilities that supply water for cities and towns, according to
Environmental Protection Agency
data. And the problems are likely even bigger because the EPA database doesn't catch all parks.
Even where parks get water from an outside source — such as a city — the clean water coming in can become contaminated if it passes through problematic infrastructure before reaching residents' taps. Because the EPA doesn't generally require this water to be tested and regulated, the problems may go unseen.
Utah is one of the few states to step in with their own rules, according to an AP survey of state policies.
'If you look back at the history of the Safe Drinking Water Act, like in the '70s when they were starting, it was, 'Well, as long as the source … is protected, then by the time it gets to the tap, it'll be fine.' And that's just not how it works,' Smith said.
The challenge of being 'halfway homeowners'
In one Colorado mobile home park, raw sewage backed up into a bathtub. In a Michigan park, the taps often ran dry and the water resembled tea; in Iowa, it looked like coffee — scaring residents off drinking it and ruining laundry they could hardly afford to replace. In California, boxes of bottled water crowd a family's kitchen over fears of arsenic.
Almost 17 million people in the U.S. live in mobile homes. Some are comfortable Sun Belt retirees. Many others have modest incomes and see mobile homes as a rare opportunity for home ownership.
To understand how water in the parks can be so troubled, it's useful to remember that residents often own their homes but rent the land they sit on. Despite the name, it's difficult and expensive to move a mobile home. That means they're 'halfway homeowners,' said Esther Sullivan, a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado in Denver who lived in several mobile home parks as she researched a book. Residents often put up with 'really egregious' property maintenance by landlords because all their money is tied up in their home, she said.
Pamela Maxey, 51, of Kalamazoo, Michigan, said she had forgotten what it was like to have reliable, clean water until she traveled to her state Capitol last year to advocate for better mobile home park protections and stayed in a hotel. By then, she had spent eight years in a park where sewage backed up into homes and the flow of tap water was sometimes weak or discolored.
'It wasn't until I went into the bathroom to take a shower that I realized, 'I don't have to jump in here and squint my eyes closed the entire time and make sure water doesn't get in my mouth because I don't know what's in it,'' she said. 'I went to brush my teeth, and I just turned the faucet on and I brushed my teeth from the water coming from the faucet. I haven't been able to do that for over a year.'
Victoria Silva, a premed student in Fort Collins, Colorado, estimates the water in Harmony Village Mobile Home Park where Silva lives went out or lost pressure 20 to 30 times over roughly three years there.
'People don't realize how much water they need until the water is out for five minutes when they need to flush, when they need to rinse something off their hands, when they need to make some pasta,' Silva said.
The park's owner says a licensed professional ensures water is maintained and tested, and outages are minimized.
Small water companies, serial problems
The U.S. has some 50,000 water utilities, most serving small towns and rural areas. Many struggle to find expert staff and funding, and they violate clean water rules more often than the handful of large utilities that serve cities. But
even among the hard-pressed small utilities
, mobile home parks stand out.
The AP analysis found that more than half these parks failed to perform a required test for at least one contaminant, or failed to properly report the results, in the past five years. And they are far more likely to be repeat offenders of safe drinking water rules overall.
But that's only part of the story. The true rates of mobile home park violations aren't knowable because the EPA doesn't track them well. The agency's tap water violation database depends on information from states that often don't properly categorize mobile home parks.
When Smith first searched Utah's database in response to an AP request for data from all 50 states, he found only four small water systems identified as belonging to mobile home parks. With some keyword searches, he identified 33 more.
Other parks aren't in the databases at all and may be completely unregulated.
One July day in 2021, officials with the EPA were out investigating sky-high arsenic levels in the tap water at Oasis Mobile Home Park in the Southern California desert when they realized the problem went way beyond just one place.
'It was literally us driving around and going, 'Wait a minute, there's a bunch of mobile home parks!'' said Amy Miller, who previously served as EPA's head of enforcement for the Pacific Southwest region.
The water in these other parks had been off their radar. At some, testing found high levels of cancer-causing arsenic in the water that had been provided to residents for years.
It's impossible to know how many unnoticed parks are out there. Most states aren't actively looking for them and say they find very few. In Colorado, after the state passed a new law to require water testing at all mobile home parks, officials uncovered 79 parks with their source of water unknown. That's about a tenth of the total parks in the state.
Pipes 'like spaghetti' in the ground
Many parks are decades old with aging pipes that can cause chronic water problems, even if the water that supplies the park is clean when it enters the system.
Jake Freeman, the engineering director at Central States Water Resources, a Missouri-based private utility company that specializes in taking over small water systems in 11 states, said substandard and poorly installed pipes are more common to see in mobile home parks.
'A lot of times, it's hard to find the piping in the mobile home parks because if there's any kind of obstruction, they just go around it,' he said. ''It's like spaghetti laying in the ground.'
After a major winter storm devastated Texas in 2021, Freeman said, the company found pipes at parks it had taken over that 'were barely buried. Some of them weren't buried.'
When pipes break and leak, the pressure drops and contaminants can enter water lines. In addition, parks sometimes have stagnant water — where pipes dead-end or water sits unused — that increases the risk of bacterial growth.
Rebecca Sadosky is public water supply chief in North Carolina, where mobile home communities make up close to 40% of all water systems. She said owners don't always realize when they buy a park that they could also be running a mini utility.
'I think they don't know that they're getting into the water business,' she said.
It doesn't have to be like this
Utah is a rare state that enforces safe drinking water standards even within mobile home parks that get their water from another provider, according to AP's survey of states. A small number of other states like New Hampshire have taken some steps to address water safety in these parks, but in most states frustrated residents may have no one to turn to for help beyond the park owner.
In Colorado, when Silva asked officials who enforces safe drinking water rules, 'I just couldn't get clear answers.'
Steve Via, director of federal regulations at the American Water Works Association utility group, argued against regulating mobile home parks that get their water from a municipality, saying that would further stretch an already taxed oversight system. And if those parks are regulated, what's to stop the rules from extending to the privately owned pipes in big apartment buildings — the line has to be drawn somewhere, he said.
Via said residents of parks where an owner refuses to fix water problems have options, including going to their local health departments, suing or complaining publicly.
Silva is among the advocates who fought for years to change Colorado's rules before they succeeded in passing a law in 2023 that requires water testing in every mobile home park. It gives health officials the ability to go beyond federal law to address taste, color and smell that can make people afraid to drink their water, even when it's not a health risk. The state is now a leader in protecting mobile home park tap water.
Smith, the Utah environmental scientist, said stopping the contaminated water flowing into the mobile home park and connecting it to a safe supply felt like a career highlight.
He said Utah's culture of making do with scarce water contributed to a willingness for stronger testing and regulations than the federal government requires.
'There's sort of the communal nature of like, everybody should have access to clean water,' he said. 'It seems to transcend political ideologies; it seems to transcend religious ideologies.'
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts

timean hour ago

More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- More than 20 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its efforts to cut Medicaid payments to the nation's largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood. The move comes in response to the package of tax breaks and spending cuts Trump signed earlier this month. A portion of the new cuts are focused on services such as cancer screenings and tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted infections — by ending Medicaid reimbursements for a year for major providers of family planning services. The cuts apply to groups that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The goal was to target Planned Parenthood, but the legislation also affected a major medical provider in Maine. California, New York, Connecticut, other states and Washington, D.C. argue in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts that the provision's language is unclear about which groups it applies to. They also say it retaliates against Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion access, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The states are asking that the portion of the law be blocked and deemed unconstitutional. The cuts threaten health care access for many low-income Americans, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference. 'This attack isn't just about abortion,' the Democrat said. 'It's about denying vulnerable communities access to care they rely on every day.' But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named a defendant in the suit, defended the provision. 'States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,' spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon said in an email. 'It is a shame that these democrat attorney generals seek to undermine state flexibility and disregard longstanding concerns about accountability.' Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics offering a range of services across the state, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed separate lawsuits earlier this year challenging the cuts. Planned Parenthood said although it is not specifically named in the law, the provision was meant to affect its nearly 600 centers in 48 states. About a third of those clinics risk closure because of the legislation, which would strip care from more than 1 million patients, the group argues. A federal judge on Monday ruled Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to receive Medicaid reimbursements. Maine Family Planning said it had enough in its reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursements only through October. About half of the group's patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid. The states' suit filed Tuesday argues that by pushing Planned Parenthood clinics to close or cut services, it could increase the states' medical care costs in the long term. Otherwise the cuts will make states use their own funds to keep health centers open. 'Either we have to comply and violate Planned Parenthood's constitutional rights and then push people to alternative providers that don't exist, who don't have the capacity to pick up the slack, or we have to spend upwards of $6 million or more to cover (those services),' said William Tong, Connecticut's Democratic attorney general. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but some conservatives argue abortion providers use Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion. ___

The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?
The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?

In the wake of the Trump administration's decision to dismantle the research arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a robust if little-known California agency known as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is poised to take on an even bigger role to bridge the gap. The EPA this month announced that it was eliminating nearly 4,000 employees as part of a cost-saving "reduction in force," the majority of which are staffers from its Office of Research and Development - whose research into environmental risks and hazards underpins nearly all EPA rules and regulations. The reduction will save the agency $748.8 million, officials said. "Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback," read a statement from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars." The ORD had been in operation since the EPA was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and was focused on conducting scientific research to help advance the EPA's goals of protecting human health and the environment. Experts said the decision to break up the research office sends a chilling signal for science and will leave more communities exposed to environmental hazards such as industrial chemicals, wildfire smoke and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - or PFAs - in drinking water, all of which are subject to the department's analysis. "The people of this country are not well served by these actions," read a statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. "They are left more vulnerable." It also shifts the onus onto California and other states to fill the void left by the federal government. ORD's research supported work around Superfund site cleanups and environmental disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires or the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. "There will be another East Palestine, another Exxon Valdez [oil spill] - some disaster will happen ... and those communities will be hurt when they don't have to be," said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at UC San Francisco and a former senior scientist and policy advisor with EPA's Office of Policy. The Golden State appears better positioned than many others carry on the work - particularly through the small but mighty department Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, located within the California Environmental Protection Agency. "California has for some time developed a pretty robust infrastructure of assessing the health harms of toxic chemicals and pollutants," Woodruff said. "So in that way, we're better off than almost any other state because we have such a stellar group of scientists." Indeed, California is known for some of its more rigorous health-based standards and regulations, such as the Proposition 65 warnings posted by businesses across the state to advise people of the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which are overseen by OEHAA. By dismantling ORD, the EPA is further politicizing the independent science and research that underpins so many of the nation's regulations, said Yana Garcia, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection. While California remains dedicated to such science, she said other states may not be so lucky. "We will continue to keep the work of OEHHA strong and remain committed to it, but we're still getting a handle on what this loss really means," Garcia said. "It is a huge loss to California. It is an even bigger loss to so many other states that don't have an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments like we do." Kris Thayer, OEHHA's director, came to agency from ORD, where she directed its IRIS program for identifying and characterizing the human health hazards of chemicals. She said the state is "absolutely going to be looking at every way that we can fill the void given our resources, but we are going to feel the pinch of this." "It's not only that the quantity of assessments will be reduced, but the credibility of the assessments will be reduced, because they will be developed by programs where there's a lot more opportunity for political interference in terms of the science that gets shaped," she said. Chemical industry and other anti-regulatory groups have lobbied for the EPA to limit ORD's influence. A January letter addressed to Zeldin spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and 80 other organizations said risk assessments developed by ORD were "being used to develop overly burdensome regulations on critical chemistries essential for products we use every day." In particular, they cited the government's evaluation of chemicals including formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and hexavalent chromium, which can be used or created by industrial processes. The groups charged the agency with a lack of impartiality and transparency, a slow process and limited peer review. Thayer noted that a lot of assessment work conducted by ORD is used in California. On the other hand, a number of states and EPA programs also look to California's assessments. "We're going to be monitoring how this unfolds, but we're certainly going to be looking to do everything we can to meet capacity - we're not going to be able to fully meet it - and recognizing that our work will not only impact California, but can be used by other states," she said. Garcia said California has hired a number of people from the federal government over the past year and is open to absorbing more EPA employees who were recently laid off. OEHHA has a number of open positions. "California remains open for [a] rigorous, science-based approach to health and environmental protections," Garcia said. Woodruff, of UCSF, said she hopes to see California and other states invest more in OEHAA and other scientific agencies by offering better salaries and bolstering staff numbers. But ultimately, she said the Golden State can use this moment to become an example for others to follow. "California could be a real leader for all the other states who also want to keep doing right by their by their constituents and continuing to address toxic chemical exposure," she said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble
Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble

Forbes

time2 hours ago

  • Forbes

Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble

Medicaid at 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes a Gamble getty Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was signed into law as part of a sweeping vision to expand health security to the most vulnerable Americans. What began in 1965 as a modest insurance program for low-income families has grown into a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system—serving as the financial backbone of hospitals, nursing homes, and community clinics across the country. But even as the country marks this milestone, that original promise is quietly being rewritten. Congress recently passed the ' One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,' a sweeping piece of legislation that imposes significant Medicaid cuts and eligibility restrictions. In Washington, the bill was framed as fiscal discipline. On the ground, it marked a turning point, redefining Medicaid not as a safety net that rises with need, but as a fixed line item shaped by cost ceilings and conditional access. What follows is a closer look at what happens when that guarantee begins to unravel and when the risk of getting sick becomes something people are forced to calculate for themselves. Medicaid has always done more than cover medical bills. It has been a quiet promise stitched into the fabric of American life—a recognition that the risk of getting sick is not something most families can plan for, much less afford. When that promise is pulled back, as it was last week with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , health care stops feeling like a guarantee and starts feeling like a bet. And for millions, it's a bet they will decide they cannot take. The Promise That Became a Lifeline For nearly six decades, Medicaid operated as an invisible safety net, rising automatically when the economy faltered or when a diagnosis arrived unannounced. It was a hedge against both poverty and uncertainty, a system designed to catch people before a crisis became a catastrophe. Yet the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , formally known as H.R. 1, has fundamentally altered that arrangement. Lawmakers framed the bill as an overdue act of discipline: a way to cap Medicaid's costs, impose work requirements, and make states more accountable for their share of spending. On a balance sheet, the reforms look precise—federal liabilities are clearer, projections are neater, and the fiscal horizon is less volatile. But the trade-offs are not just financial. They are psychological and behavioral, etched into the quiet decisions families make when coverage ends. Behavioral economics helps explain why these decisions rarely unfold as policy architects imagine. A New Law Redefines the Rules Medicaid was always meant to be open-ended. Its funding model guaranteed that if more people lost jobs or fell into poverty, more federal dollars would follow. This arrangement recognized that health care is inherently unpredictable, that no family can perfectly forecast when a child will need an inhaler or a parent will need surgery. By removing that guarantee, the new law transfers uncertainty away from the federal treasury and onto households already living close to the edge. For many, the first moment of impact is deceptively mundane: a letter in the mailbox stating that their coverage is ending. What comes next is shaped by powerful, almost universal forces. When Health Insurance Feels Like a Losing Bet Present bias tells people to value today's savings over tomorrow's risks. A monthly premium feels like a luxury when the refrigerator is half empty and rent is overdue. Even if they understand the danger of going without insurance, uncertainty makes the alternatives—searching for plans, calculating probabilities, comparing deductibles—feel too daunting to confront. Some will try to find new coverage. Others will quietly decide to take their chances. This isn't simply a matter of calculation. It is the predictable result of systems designed without regard for how people actually behave when the floor beneath them shifts. The Quiet Calculus Behind Walking Away Even for those who recognize the risk, the next step is often the hardest. Medicaid, for all its bureaucracy, offers clarity: you are covered. When that certainty vanishes, people must decide whether to buy coverage themselves, estimate the odds of serious illness, and navigate the complexity of health plans. The discomfort of this ambiguity often leads to avoidance. Rather than confront the possibilities, many choose to delay the decision, telling themselves they will sort it out later. Why Coverage Starts to Look Too Expensive to Keep Compounding the problem is loss aversion, the reality that losing something once held feels far worse than never having it at all. For those who have relied on Medicaid for years, the experience of being cut off is not a budget adjustment but a rupture of trust. Even when subsidies exist, many will not take the next step. Familiar ground feels safer, even when it means going uninsured and hoping the worst does not come. These psychological forces do not show up in budget projections. They appear later, in emergency rooms and bankruptcy filings, in the small tragedies of untreated illness and debt that follows people for years. The Subtle Trade-Offs That Tip the Scales Supporters of the law often point to the success of managed care as proof that fixed payments can control costs. But that comparison misses a critical distinction. Managed care transferred risk from governments to insurers, but the federal commitment to match funding remained intact. This legislation severs that link. It turns Medicaid from a guarantee into a capped liability, decoupled from the unpredictable reality of illness and economic hardship. More than sixty percent of Medicaid enrollees are children, older adults, or people living with disabilities. Communities of color rely on it disproportionately, a reflection of generational inequities in income and employment. When the program contracts, it does not simply save money. It reallocates uncertainty downward, to those least able to absorb it, and it multiplies the strain that comes with knowing a single accident or diagnosis could change everything. On the Ground: An ER Surgeon's View Dr. Kimberly Joseph, a retired trauma and emergency surgeon and former Division Chair for Trauma Critical Care and Prevention in the Department of Trauma at the Stroger Hospital of Cook County in Chicago, explains that gaps in Medicaid coverage rarely influence whether trauma patients seek emergency care, but they frequently shape what happens next. 'Problems with insurance coverage could affect the discharge process—lack of insurance or Medicaid coverage could result in delays in getting patients to inpatient rehabilitation.' The complications don't end there. She notes recurring delays in accessing home health services, wound care, or even basic medical equipment like wheelchairs and canes. These disruptions ripple far beyond the patient's bedside. 'We often had patients discharged from other hospitals and told to 'go to County' because they were uninsured ,' she says. 'That created challenges for integrating care, tracking medications, and navigating systems that weren't built to share information.' Dr. Joseph's perspective is a reminder that the consequences of cutting Medicaid are rarely immediate and never contained. They don't stay confined to policy memos or budget reports. They appear in crowded hospital corridors, in the moments when a preventable condition becomes an emergency, and in the quiet calculus that forces families to decide whether health is a risk they are willing—or able—to take. A Commitment Receding Into Memory The savings Congress projects will appear clearly on ledgers. The costs, however, surface in other ways: delayed checkups, untreated diabetes, and emergency care that arrives too late. They show up in lost wages, missed school days, and families who decide—quietly, and often without telling anyone—that health insurance is a bet they can no longer afford to make. Medicaid is not merely a welfare program. It is a promise that in an uncertain world, some risks will be shared, not carried alone. As that promise recedes, the country must confront a simple question: does it still believe that no American should be one diagnosis away from financial ruin—or is health just another wager, left to those willing to take their chances?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store