Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrowly rejects motion to remove fluoride from Hanover water after lengthy debate
Summary
After extended public comment and council debate, a motion to discontinue adding fluoride to Hanover's public drinking water failed on a 4–5 roll-call vote; council members cited constituent outreach, scientific uncertainty and equity concerns during discussion.
Hanover Borough's Finance and Personnel Committee considered whether to discontinue fluoridation of the borough's drinking water on May 20, 2026, after a town-hall process and significant public comment.
The council debated for more than an hour, hearing clinicians, community advocates and residents. Dr. John Grimes, a Hanover dentist, told the committee that "fluoride has been one of the most instrumental things for cavity prevention that we've had in the last 60 years" and urged officials to rely on established public-health expertise. Helen Hockey, identifying herself as representing the Pennsylvania Coalition for Oral Health, told council the organization could help offset pump-replacement costs ("The estimate for your replacement pumps is $12,000 approximately") and warned that removing fluoride would disproportionately harm children and low-income families.
Council members described a mix of constituent views and competing priorities. Several members said they canvassed voters in their wards and reviewed social-media commentary; one councilor summarized local posts and said about 90% of commenters on several threads favored removal, while others reported town-hall attendance and door-knocking that leaned toward keeping fluoride. Scientific uncertainty also featured in remarks: one member who identified himself as having a scientific background said he had seen no regulatory directive from EPA or DEP to remove fluoride and expressed concern about removing a preventive measure that helps residents who lack regular dental care.
A motion was made to "discontinue the addition of fluoride to the borough's public drinking water system and to authorize the Department to apply for all necessary permits" to remove fluoridation per the Department of Water Resources recommendation dated March 16, 2026. The chair clarified voting: "Yes" would remove fluoride; "No" would keep it. On a roll-call vote the motion to remove fluoride recorded four votes in favor and five opposed, so the motion failed.
Council members who opposed removal cited equity and public-health tradeoffs: "We're not a rich community," one member said, urging caution before removing a preventive public-health intervention for children who may lack dental access. Members who supported removal emphasized individual choice and reported constituent concerns about potential health risks.
The committee did not adopt a further directive to staff beyond the failed motion. Councilors suggested follow-up steps could include additional study, permit amendments to allow operational flexibility (for example, lowering fluoride concentration if supplies are limited), and continued public outreach.
The committee moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no change to fluoridation was implemented that night.
