Dozens of residents urged the Saint Clair County Board of Commissioners on July 17 to reconsider fluoridation of public water systems, and members of the county’s advisory board of health voted to ask the health department to prepare a public information package outlining pros and cons of adding fluoride to drinking water. The package, the advisory board said, will be reviewed by the advisory board and then distributed to municipalities that operate public water supplies so local governments and residents can decide whether to request changes.
Why it matters: Fluoridation affects which communities receive added fluoride in drinking water and touches questions of public-health policy, local control and regulatory authority. Commenters argued for individual choice and questioned the public-health benefits and risks to children; advisory-board members said the county’s role should inform and not mandate municipal water systems.
Residents and advisory-board members filled the microphone during public comment. Sandra Richardson of Fort Gratiot Township told commissioners she attended a recent health-department meeting seeking basic facts about which townships have fluoridated water and “the pros and cons of it.” “I do think it should be your own personal choice,” Richardson said. Clyde Township resident Chris Barto said he supported the medical director’s memorandum on the subject and said he favored individual choice. Jill Barto, also of Clyde Township, said she and her siblings had fillings despite a sugar-restricted childhood and said residents should be able to choose whether chemicals are added to their water.
Several commenters cited international comparisons and recent studies. Libby Pearl said many countries in Europe and large nations such as China and India do not add fluoride to public water and raised concerns about possible health effects reported in some research. Dawn Falk, a member of the advisory board of health, told commissioners she strongly supported the county medical director’s memorandum dated June 17, 2025, and urged review of the scientific literature and the policy implications.
Advisory-board action, county response and legal questions
Commissioners were briefed by a commissioner who sits on the advisory board of health that the advisory board asked the health department to prepare a packet presenting the pros and cons of fluoridation, and that the advisory board voted unanimously on that course of action after nearly an hour of debate. The advisory board, the commissioner said, was reluctant to impose a county-level regulation that could remove local control from municipalities that choose to keep fluoride in their water; under guidance cited at the meeting, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) retains regulatory authority over public water supplies.
Commissioners discussed the legal interplay between local authority and state oversight. One commissioner noted that the County Commission Act gives limited county authority over municipal affairs and suggested corporation counsel review where authority resides between the county public-health code and EGLE. Another commissioner said he believed the county health department had relevant legal authority but recommended legal review.
Next steps and public access to material
Commissioners asked that the medical director’s memorandum and advisory-board materials be circulated to the full commission; one commissioner said they would forward the memorandum to colleagues. The advisory board will review the health department package for content; the plan presented to commissioners indicated the package would then be distributed to municipal water suppliers and communities that have authority over their own water systems for local consideration and possible petitions to remove fluoride.
Speakers included county residents and advisory-board members; commissioners did not adopt a countywide regulation at the July 17 meeting.
What remains unsettled: which municipalities, if any, will petition to change fluoridation status, and whether the county or EGLE would have final authority should municipalities, the health department or the commission pursue any regulatory action.