Fluoride in public water: senators advance competing bills allowing local votes or board decisions

Senate Bill 4‑68 and Senate Bill 6‑13, both filed by Sen. Clint Penzo, were presented to the committee as competing approaches to allowing local decisions on fluoridation of public water systems.

SB 4‑68 (the shorter, three‑page measure) authorizes removal of fluoride for a public water system if a majority of the qualified electors in each county served by that system approve prohibition of fluoridation in a countywide election. Penzo described the draft as “cleaner” and said it fixed a drafting issue in an earlier floor bill by ensuring that each county served by a multi‑county water system must approve the change rather than allowing a majority of counties to decide for a county with a larger population.

SB 6‑13 is a longer, more detailed alternative that county clerks and other stakeholders had asked the senator to consider; clerks testified they were neutral on SB 6‑13 and raised implementation questions about petition thresholds, who pays election costs and which voters are eligible to participate.

County clerks said the petition threshold language should reference the last general election (to avoid counting votes cast in unopposed primaries) and that petitions should be filed in the county where the water system is domiciled rather than by the petitioner’s county of residence. Faulkner County election coordinator Laura Wiles told the committee that the bill’s current wording could allow any registered voter in a county to vote even if they are not served by the water system, and she urged clearer language to define eligible voters and payment of election costs.

Association of Arkansas Counties counsel Lindsay French echoed clerks’ concerns and noted that some bill language would let a public water system’s board prohibit fluoridation without a public vote; the bill includes a provision that an election result would supersede a board decision.

Sen. Penzo accepted a minor technical amendment to replace the text “county clerk” with “circuit clerk” in two locations to align with election code practice. After testimony and debate the committee adopted the amendment and advanced the bill as amended; Sen. Penzo also asked that both drafts be made available to the full Senate so the entire body can decide which approach to favor.

What supporters said: Penzo and backers framed the measures as returning control over fluoridation to local voters or locally responsible boards; sponsors pointed to cost savings and the option to deliver topical fluoride through Medicaid programs as an alternative.

What opponents and implementers said: County clerks and the Association of Arkansas Counties asked for clearer petition thresholds, clarified filing locations, and explicit instructions about who pays for elections. Witnesses also noted that inter‑state or interstate service agreements (for example, Texarkana) can complicate local control and must be handled by intergovernmental agreement language already used in some systems.

Next steps: The committee adopted a technical amendment and advanced the bills; sponsors said they would take both versions to the floor and let the full Senate decide which approach to send to the House.