Local dentist urges public forum and possible ballot action after city removes fluoride from water

Dr. Ivan Wolthias, a dentist who said he has practiced for 26 years, told the Sweet Home Health Committee on Sept. 3 that he was “very disappointed with the way that the city handled the water fluoridation” and urged the committee to take the issue back to the public.

Wolthias said the city did not consult medical or dental professionals or the committee before council action and that he learned of the change only at third reading. He asked the committee to sponsor public education and a broader public forum and said he would help lead outreach and provide printed materials he had prepared.

Why it matters: Wolthias told the committee that community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by more than 25 percent for children and adults, is cost‑effective for community water systems that serve more than 1,000 people, and is supported by major health organizations. He cited the American Dental Association’s executive summary and said the CDC lists fluoridation among the 10 greatest public‑health achievements of the 20th century.

Key points from Wolthias’s presentation included: “Fluoridation of community water supplies is a single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay,” and that a community‑level fluoridation program provides a low daily systemic dose that benefits children during tooth development and adults with root exposures. He described examples in other jurisdictions where removal of fluoridation was followed, in his account, by higher rates of severe decay and hospital sedation for children.

Procedural options discussed: City staff Cicely explained to the committee that because the council’s removal of fluoride has already passed, the municipal procedures allow a vote to reconsider only if “someone who voted yes on the removal” makes a motion to reconsider within six months of passage; otherwise the public may pursue a petition to place the question on a ballot, which requires signatures from a specified share of registered voters (staff said the threshold was roughly 1,300–1,600 signatures in a recent petition effort). Cicely also said that past litigation over fluoridation has occurred at state and federal levels and that a pending federal case had challenged EPA standards under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Discussion only: Committee members asked whether the committee could host a forum now that the council acted; staff advised that the committee, as an advisory body appointed by council, must not take a public stance contrary to the council’s final decision but that an informational open conversation presenting both sides likely would be allowable pending city‑attorney review. Staff agreed to consult the city attorney about whether the committee may host an information forum that addresses both positions.

Ending: Wolthias said he would make digital copies of his ADA‑sourced booklet available to staff for distribution in the committee packet. Staff described petition and agenda procedures for anyone seeking council reconsideration or a ballot measure.