Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill restricting how fluoridation can be removed from public water; debate over timing and local costs
Summary
First substitute HB 64 would require public votes to remove fluoride the same way it was added and imposes a minimum period before revotes (the substitute set four years); senators debated municipal costs (Layton cited nearly $1 million), whether the first revote start date should be changed, and the balance between initiative rights and protecting city investments. The bill advanced to third‑reading after roll-call.
Senator Bell introduced the first substitute to House Bill 64 to address an inequity in state law that, in his view, prevented citizens from reversing a prior fluoridation decision. The substitute amends section 19-4-111 to require that fluoride be removed from public water supplies only by a public vote called the same way it could be added and establishes a minimum interval between revotes; the substitute sets that interval to four years.
Bell framed the bill as procedural, not a statement about fluoride's merits: "This is not pro or con fluoride. This is simply an issue of electoral fairness balancing the people's right to have their will implemented either way." He said the bill also provides that if a countywide system is fluoridated, removal would require a countywide vote unless a functionally separate system exists.
Debate focused on timing and municipal costs. Senators from Davis County and others described implementation cost growth in several cities; Bell stated some cities had firm proposals and cited Layton's estimate of nearly $1,000,000 to install fluoridation equipment. Senator Eastman and others urged delaying revote eligibility so cities that had already invested would have time to amortize costs; an amendment offered to change a statutory date (deleting "2000" and inserting "2002" so the first allowable revote would be in 2006) was proposed on the floor but failed on the voice vote.
Supporters of the substitute said it was a carefully struck compromise that prevents rapid back-and-forth votes while preserving citizens' rights; opponents worried it could unduly burden initiative rights in light of Gallivan-related legal questions. On roll call, the first substitute passed with 19 aye votes, 7 no votes and 3 absences and moved to the third‑reading calendar.
What happens next: The bill advances to third reading; jurisdictions and citizens interested in fluoridation policy should note the four‑year revote interval and the countywide/municipality rule for shared water systems.
