Longview council halts plan for fluoride ballot measure after Beacon Hill declines to participate

The Longview City Council on March 27 voted to remove from consideration a proposed ballot measure that would have asked voters whether to discontinue fluoride in the city water supply. Assistant City Manager Chris Collins told council Beacon Hill Water and Sewer District—one of Longview’s water partners—declined to participate in a coordinated referendum, and several medical and dental professionals urged the council to leave fluoridation in place.

The decision follows months of public discussion. Collins reported that a full Beacon Hill meeting was held and that district leaders “respectfully declined” to join a proposed referendum or advisory vote this November. Council member Wallace moved to remove the ballot measure from consideration; the motion was seconded and the council adopted the motion.

The nut of the decision was practical and interjurisdictional: Beacon Hill’s refusal to participate and the technical and cost implications of discontinuing or restoring fluoridation weighed heavily in the council’s deliberations. Council members who supported the motion cited broad public and clinical support for fluoridation, staff time and expense for ballot measures, and the prospect that Beacon Hill would face substantial capital costs if Longview discontinued fluoridation and Beacon Hill later sought to add it at its own connection points.

Medical and dental testimony at the meeting emphasized community-health consequences. “The fluoride really helps slow things down so that we can manage it and keep kids smiling,” said Dr. Jeffrey Langdon, a physician who practices in the area. Christine Johnson, a dentist who lives in Longview, told council that water fluoridation prevents cavities across age groups and helps protect elderly residents who may lose manual dexterity.

Beacon Hill board member Dean Tacko, speaking for himself, told council the district’s residents strongly favored continuing fluoridation and said he had not encountered public support for removing fluoride in community conversations: “I had yet to have a person approach me out in the public and go, Dean, take that fluoride out of there,” Tacko said.

Council debate referenced the costs and logistics of running a ballot measure and producing voter-education materials. Collins told council an administrative cost for ballot placement itself would be modest when added to other November items but cautioned that staff time and the preparation of pro/con statements and education materials would increase the total cost. Council members also noted that adding fluoridation equipment at the Beacon Hill service connections would be costly; staff and commenters discussed a multi-connection installation and described the capital cost as significant (comments in the record referenced a figure characterized as “over $1 million” to add treatment at multiple connection points).

After public comment that included dentists, physicians and residents on both sides of the issue, the council voted on the motion to remove the topic from further consideration. The motion carried.

The council’s action does not change treatment in Longview: the city continues to fluoridate its water under current operations. Council members and staff said the decision could be revisited if the political will or technical circumstances change, and that formal reintroduction would require the city’s normal notice and two-signature agenda procedures.