Fluoride ban bill sparks wide testimony in Human Services hearing; medical and water officials urge local control and cite evidence for fluoridation

Representative Matt Heilman opened the hearing on House Bill 16-05, which would prohibit adding fluoride to public water systems statewide, impose fines for violations and include an effective date to allow local systems time to adjust. Heilman cited recent publications and a U.S. district‑court ruling and said public officials should not force fluoride on water consumers.

Proponents offered diverse arguments. Keith Tihapab Jr., a Washburn city commissioner, testified he plans to pursue cessation of fluoridation locally and disputed commonly cited benefit figures, saying some recent studies show smaller effects on cavities and that cost‑benefit studies may omit certain costs or adverse effects. He and other proponents cited a National Toxicology Program review and a JAMA Pediatrics meta‑analysis assessing associations between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes, and they referenced a recent federal court decision in California.

Dentists, health officials, water operators and state agencies testified in opposition. Dr. Bradley King, a Bismarck dentist, called community water fluoridation “one of the greatest public health successes in the twentieth century,” said it substantially reduced tooth loss and argued removal would disproportionately harm children and low‑income residents. Vanessa Bopp of the Department of Health and Human Services public‑health division described community water fluoridation as a “controlled addition” intended to achieve an optimal concentration that prevents cavities and noted the public‑health division’s view of fluoridation as the most effective, cost‑efficient delivery method.

William Sherwin of the North Dakota Dental Association and other clinical witnesses highlighted that most studies showing severe neurodevelopmental effects were conducted in settings with naturally occurring fluoride levels far above U.S. fluoridation levels or with other confounding exposures; they stressed that the U.S. HHS recommended level since 2015 is 0.7 milligrams per liter and that the EPA regulates higher contaminant thresholds. Greg Wavra, the state drinking water programs administrator, explained that fluoridation has historically been implemented at the local level in North Dakota and that systems testing and reporting occur monthly; he said some systems must remove naturally occurring fluoride where levels exceed safety thresholds.

Committee members asked technical questions about measurement, data sources and local decision processes. Representative Heilman and proponents highlighted CDC data cited in testimony that “74 water systems do not have fluoride while 299 do have fluoride,” and said the Department of Health and Human Services reports 96.5 percent of North Dakotans drink water with fluoride. Opponents pointed to long public‑health practice, state and national professional association endorsements, and the potential for increased cavities and related hospitalizations if fluoridation were removed.

After extensive testimony from local officials, dental professionals, public‑health program staff and water operators, the committee closed the hearing with no vote recorded.