City staff, council and residents debate fluoridation of Battle Ground water

City staff briefed the Battle Ground City Council on the history, operations and legal requirements tied to fluoridating the municipal water supply, and a series of residents urged the council to either maintain fluoridation for public‑health reasons or to remove it because of perceived health risks.

The presentation and a later public‑comment block spelled out the technical steps for adding fluoride to water and the process the city must follow if it chooses to discontinue it. Staff said the city injects sodium fluoride at its sources and tests each location daily to meet Department of Health rules, and that the state requires at least 90 days’ public notice before a vote to remove fluoridation.

The briefing matters because changing water treatment would require a formal, documented public outreach process and could disrupt routine operations and testing. Staff also gave a preliminary estimate of recurring costs for the city’s current practice and described statutory notification steps the city must follow if it chose to start the 90‑day removal process.

Mark (staff member) opened the work session with background on water fluoridation, noting that “fluoride is a mineral that is naturally occurring in many foods and water” and that Grand Rapids, Michigan, was the first U.S. city to intentionally add fluoride in 1945. He said Washington state has a mixed pattern of naturally occurring fluoride and that the Department of Health’s guidance sets an optimal concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter and an operating tolerance between 0.5 and 0.9. He told council that the system “inject[s] it at all sources, which includes our wells and then the [intertie],” and that the city tests each source daily per DOH requirements.

On costs, Mark gave an estimate: the material supply is roughly $10,000 to $15,000 per year and third‑party laboratory testing and staff time run about $5,000 annually. He cautioned that some testing costs and some operations would remain even if fluoride were removed because staff still conducts other required water analyses.

On process, staff reviewed the state legal step that requires notice to customers and the Department of Health at least 90 days before any local vote or decision to remove fluoridation. The statute as discussed in the meeting requires “notification by radio, TV, newspaper, mail, electronic means, or any method which will effectively notify customers,” and staff said the statute does not prescribe a fixed list of methods but requires the city to show it made an adequate effort to reach customers. Staff said if a jurisdiction fails to meet the law’s notice requirements, state rules can require restoring fluoride until proper notification occurs.

Council members and the mayor pressed on details of both cost and the outreach steps. Deputy Mayor Bowman asked whether taking fluoride out would eliminate the lab testing costs; staff replied that vendors charge per test and the city would save only the per‑test fee for fluoride while still incurring many other sampling and labor costs. Council members also asked about whether sewer testing captures fluoride levels; staff said regional wastewater testing does not typically include fluoride on routine panels.

Several council members and the mayor framed the issue as one of public health tradeoffs and of evidence. One councilmember emphasized pediatric dental perspectives raised at previous meetings and cited a Centers for Disease Control estimate of a high return on investment from community fluoridation, while others urged rigorous review of the scientific record. The staff brief and council discussion also referenced a recent federal lawsuit and regulatory review at the national level, and staff said they were monitoring any changes from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health.

During the regular meeting’s public‑comment period, multiple residents and professionals addressed the council. Retired dentist Bill Osmundson identified himself as a dentist with a master’s in public health and told the council that much existing fluoride research is observational rather than randomized controlled trials; he urged the council to view the overall public‑health evidence and the balance of benefits. Derek Campanin cited filings in a recent case involving Food & Water Watch and the EPA and summarized expert testimony he said recommended a large safety margin; he described concerns raised in the trial about neurodevelopmental risks at higher exposures. Other commenters, including Jerry Rubano (Camas) and Justin Forsman (Vancouver), also urged the city to revisit fluoridation in light of recent litigation and research they cited. Several commenters said fluoridation provides little systemic benefit and asked for informed‑consent style notice to consumers.

Council and staff did not take a vote or direct staff to start the 90‑day removal notice at the meeting. Several council members said they wanted to review additional scientific data and cost estimates and to be cautious about rushing a policy change without clear evidence. Staff emphasized the procedural requirements that would apply if the council later decided to begin the 90‑day public‑notice period and offered to return with a written summary of the law and outreach cost scenarios.

Looking ahead, any council decision to remove fluoride would trigger the statutory notification steps and would likely require a staff plan for public outreach (examples cited included inserts in water bills, website and social posts, and press releases) and documentation that the city had used effective means to reach customers.

What’s next: staff offered to return with written material about the Department of Health requirements, possible outreach costs, and summaries of the cited court rulings and federal reviews so the council could consider the tradeoffs at a future meeting.