The Brevard County Commission appear to have accidentally approved the removal of fluoride from the Mims water supply.
In a snap vote Tuesday, commissioners unanimously approved a request from Commission Chair Rita Pritchett, permitting her to begin halting the addition of fluoride at the county-run water treatment facility in her North Brevard district.
The problem was: no one seemed to realize exactly what they were voting on.
Three commissioners told FLORIDA TODAY they thought they were voting to bring the item back for board discussion. Another, who said heunderstood the motion, voted in favor despite being uncertain whether the commission had the authority to grant Pritchett that power.
County staff, too, were left scrambling to determine exactly what the motion was and what it meant. Would there be a review process? Public debate? Final board approval?
“That’s kind of what we’re working to ascertain,” said Brevard County Communications Director Don Walker.
The decision to remove the mineral — commonly added to drinking water to fight tooth decay and prevent conditions linked to poor dental health — could impact up to 8,000 Mims residents.
There was no advance notice on the meeting agenda, however, giving commissioners little time to review the proposal and the public no chance to weigh in.
All three board members who were unclear on the nature of the vote later told FLORIDA TODAY they would have approved the motion anyway.
Pritchett so far has not issued any directions to county utilities to begin rolling back fluoridation, Walker said.
“We don’t think it’s going to come back to the board, but there’s always a possibility,” he said.
But that wasn’t at all clear Friday.
Approached by a FLORIDA TODAY reporter at a Thursday zoning meeting, Pritchett said shebelieved the board had granted her sole authority to make the decision for her constituents.
Meanwhile, nearly a dozen Mims residents who spoke to FLORIDA TODAY were against the idea They had no idea the issue was even coming up for a vote, they said.
“The public should know about everything,” said longtime resident, Jim Eaves.
Commissioners weren’t clear what they were voting on
Part of the problem with Tuesday’s vote was the motion was never noticed or put into writing. Pritchett’s request was introduced verbally and never repeated or clarified throughout the brief, 7-minute discussion preceding the vote.
“I would love someone to make a motion for me to work on removing it (fluoride) from North Brevard water,” she said.
That portion — “for me to work on removing it from North Brevard water” — comprised the motion in its entirety, said Walker, reading from a staff transcription.
The motion was picked up by Commissioner Bryan Lober and seconded by Commissioner Kristine Zonka. Asked by a reporter, Lober and Zonka, along with Commissioner Curt Smith, later said they believed they were supporting a motion to return the item to the board for discussion and approval.
“I think it was basically to give staff direction that the board was interested in having something brought back to us … to tell them yes or no,” Lober said.
At theThursday zoning meeting, however, Pritchett said she believed it was the final vote she needed to move forward with ending the Mims fluoridation program.
“My perspective was different,” Smith said. “It could be. I don’t know what authority we have to just give her that authority.”
Commissioner John Tobia, who voted to give Pritchett the go-ahead, later told FLORIDA TODAY he wasn’t certain if that decision was within the board’s power.
“The question is, is this a legislative or administrative decision?” Tobia said. The former requires the board to follow a strict procedure, which includes informing the public of pending legislation and holding a public hearing, he said.
“It’s kind of in that nebulous world that it could be either one,” Tobia said, adding he had consulted with County Attorney Eden Bentley on the matter.
Bentley did not return multiple messages from reporters seeking clarification.
The ambiguous motion left county staff unsure exactly what they were being asked to do, or what the next steps in the process would look like.
“It’s direction, more or less, what do we need to do moving forward, but its open for interpretation,” county spokesman Don Walker said. “It doesn’t specifically spell out what we are working on.”
No notice shut out public, experts
The lack of advance notice of the issue on the meeting agenda effectively shut out residents from the decision. It also prevented experts from countering in real time dubious claims that Pritchett and other commissioners used to justify the end of the fluoridation program.
“It raises the risk for high blood pressure, it ages you quicker,” Pritchett said at the meeting, repeating a number of claims by critics of water fluoridation that health experts say has little basis in credible research.
Commissioners repeatedly defended Pritchett’s request by pointing to “science on both sides.”
It was not clear whether Pritchett consulted any local experts before making her recommendation to the board.
Extremely high levels of fluoride, orders of magnitude higher than what people are exposed to from drinking water, can have adverse health effects. But health experts say the amount of fluoride recommended for public water utilities is safe, and strictly regulated.
Cheryl A. Vamos, a professor and researcher of maternal and child health at the University of South Florida’s college of public health, said she is unaware of any credible scientific evidence the supports any connection between water fluoridation, at the levels recommended by public health agencies, with negative effects on aging, blood pressure or other health conditions.
On the other hand, she said, the benefits for childhood and adult dental health make water fluoridation a valuable public health policy.
“Fluoridation is actually the most cost effective way to prevent against cavities among both children and adults,” Vamos said, adding that cavities for children are a significant, health, education and economic issue.
“It’s the number one reason why children miss school. It causes significant pain, unnecessary hospitalization (or) ER visits. Parents and caregivers have to take time off work,” Vamos said.
Water fluoridation is endorsed by the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In a letter to the County Commission on Wednesday, Brevard County Health Director Maria Stahl strongly opposed the decision. “I am extremely concerned on the potential action of eliminating community water fluoridation (CWF) in Mims water,” Stahl wrote.
“Dental caries is one of the most common infections in children and adults. Many refereed studies over the past 75 years have shown CWF to be safe and effective in reducing caries by 30-40 % (25% with proper dental care),” she wrote.
Despite Stahl’s letter, Pritchett maintained Thursday that removing fluoride from Mims water was “the best thing we can do for this community,” she told FLORIDA TODAY.
A review of county property records showed neither Pritchett’s home in Titusville, nor various properties owned by her and her husband, are serviced by Mims water.
A representative for the City of Titusville, which provides the water for Pritchett’s home, said Thursday removing fluoride was “not under consideration at this time.”
Pritchett noted Tuesday that she filters her home water to remove fluoride.
‘The public should know about everything’
It is unclear how much support Pritchett had from the community or what actions she had taken to gauge interest in the measure.
On Tuesday, she attributed raising the issue only to “an email that was sent out to us about fluoride” that “retriggered something in me,” though she did not elaborate.
FLORIDA TODAY spoke to nearly a dozen Mims residents at home or walking in their neighborhoods Thursday morning.
Besides one man who read about it in the paper, none were aware of the commission’s vote to alter their water supply, or who among them even supported the move.
“It was a complete surprise to me. I don’t see why it’s an issue that needed to come up,” said Charles Filko, 66.
Filko, like every resident FLORIDA TODAY spoke to, expected such a consequential decision would have at least come with a little notice and public debate. Nobody was aware of any initiative or group that wanted fluoride removed from Mims water.
“The public should know about everything” the commission does, said Mims native Jim Eaves, 78, a former county maintenance man and supervisor. “I’m for keeping it in … and this is the first I’ve heard,” he told a reporter from the seat of his lawnmower.
A few streets away, near the Harry T. & Harriett V. Moore Cultural Complex, Jocelyn Warren, a 51-year-old who works at a dialysis center in Merritt Island, said she supported water fluoridation because she came from a community that didn’t have it.
“I grew up in the Philippines and we don’t have fluoride in the water, so we all have bad teeth,” she said, noting she was thankful her son benefited from the practice in Mims where she’s lived since 1994.
“We need the fluoride in the water. Why are they doing this?” she asked.
Only one resident told FLORIDA TODAY that fluoride should not be in her drinking water. Even so, she didn’t support the commission’s decision without knowing what the cost-benefit analysis was.
“I’m an accountant,” 60-year-old Sherree Warga said. “What’s the cost?”
She said she has a filtration system in her home which removes fluoride. Warga said she believed fluoride may have adverse health effects while also being good for teeth. But belief alone shouldn’t drive policy, she said.
“Passion isn’t the basis for making decisions,” she said. “Obviously this is something (Commissioner Pritchett) is passionate about.”
It doesn’t affect their own constituents
Lober, Smith, Tobia and Zonka each said they didn’t know what kind of research Pritchett had done or what degree of support she had, nor did they say they would necessarily support defluoridation within their own districts.
But none challenged Pritchett’s request Tuesday, pushed for more information or contested the way the item was introduced. All said they supported her desire to end water fluoridation in her district because it didn’t affect their own constituents.
“Given that it was only in one commissioner’s district, deference was paid to that commissioner,” Tobia said
Tobia, who in 2018 proposed an ultimately defeated motion that barred substantive votes from taking place during commissioner board reports, said items that result in a vote should generally appear on the agenda, giving commissioners time to respond.
But, he said: “I don’t think there was ill intent,” calling the fluoride item an “oversight.”
The situation calls into question the role of other county commissioners in what happens outside their districts, and what responsibility they have to keep their colleagues in check.
Lober said he believed each commissioner has an obligation to his or her own district or the county as a whole, but not necessarily to voters in other districts.
“The commission really exists to control what’s happening across the county, not so much what’s happening within one district. … If it’s something that impacts the county as a whole or multiple districts, than yes, the checks and balance come more into play,” he said.
“To be frank, I don’t really care about what individual constituents of another commissioner care about,” Lober said. “They need to talk to their commissioner.”
Bentley did not return multiple messages from reporters seeking clarification.
The ambiguous motion left county staff unsure exactly what they were being asked to do, or what the next steps in the process would look like.
“It’s direction, more or less, what do we need to do moving forward, but its open for interpretation,” county spokesman Don Walker said. “It doesn’t specifically spell out what we are working on.”
No notice shut out public, experts
The lack of advance notice of the issue on the meeting agenda effectively shut out residents from the decision. It also prevented experts from countering in real time dubious claims that Pritchett and other commissioners used to justify the end of the fluoridation program.
“It raises the risk for high blood pressure, it ages you quicker,” Pritchett said at the meeting, repeating a number of claims by critics of water fluoridation that health experts say has little basis in credible research.
Commissioners repeatedly defended Pritchett’s request by pointing to “science on both sides.”
It was not clear whether Pritchett consulted any local experts before making her recommendation to the board.
Extremely high levels of fluoride, orders of magnitude higher than what people are exposed to from drinking water, can have adverse health effects. But health experts say the amount of fluoride recommended for public water utilities is safe, and strictly regulated.
Cheryl A. Vamos, a professor and researcher of maternal and child health at the University of South Florida’s college of public health, said she is unaware of any credible scientific evidence the supports any connection between water fluoridation, at the levels recommended by public health agencies, with negative effects on aging, blood pressure or other health conditions.
Print 
PDF