Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates bill letting some counties place fluoridation on local ballots; senators exchange on removal costs
Summary
SB 158 would let county commissioners in second-class counties put fluoridation to a local vote; sponsors said household alternatives exist and estimated modest monthly costs for bottled or filtered water, while opponents raised scientific and process concerns; the bill advanced to the House per the recorded tally.
Sen. Edgar Allen reintroduced Senate Bill 158 to allow county commissioners in second-class counties to place the question of adding fluoride to public water supplies on local ballots. "The bill allows the county commissioners of second class counties to place on the ballot ... the question of fluoridation of the public water supply," he said.
In response to floor questions about whether fluoride can be removed from water, Allen and other supporters said removal is possible with commercially available home systems and reverse-osmosis and distillation technology. "There are systems in place right now ... where the water is, by nature, over fluoridated," Allen said, noting reverse osmosis and distillation as valid removal methods. Sponsors also provided household-cost estimates for alternatives: prepared water at about $7 per month or fluoride-removal tablets at about $4 per month, figures offered on the floor.
Opponents challenged scientific claims and objected to delegating the decision to county commissions rather than direct citizen initiative in some cases. After debate and a roll-call sequence recorded in the transcript, the clerk reported the recorded tally and that the bill "passes to the house for consideration." The session recorded 9 nays and four absences at the point the clerk summarized the vote.
