SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will wade into a half-century of controversy in San Diego.
The Legislature yesterday sent legislation to the governor that could clear the way for the city to add fluoride to drinking water.
However, city officials are still analyzing the measure to determine whether it demands too much and they have left open the possibility that they could call on Schwarzenegger to veto it. The governor has not taken a position on the bill.
The San Diego City Council is expected to review SB 96 when it meets Sept. 7.
Tops on the list of concerns: whether the city would still be exposed to costly lawsuits from those claiming harm caused by fluoridated water.
“That’s a pretty big issue for us,” said Andrew Poat, the city’s director of governmental relations.
The city also wants to make sure promised grants fully cover startup and ongoing expenses without being forced to tap ratepayers.
Another worry is the estimated $8 million price tag. The measure does not provide funding but would make it easier for the city to secure a grant from the California Dental Association.
San Diego is the largest city in the nation to not add fluoride to its water, according to Sen. Dede Alpert, the San Diego Democrat carrying the measure.
The City Council decided to add fluoride to its water in 2000, overriding the results of two earlier public votes, in 1954 and 1968. However, financial constraints and legal disputes stalled the program.
The legislation affirms that the state can use public health concerns to pre-empt local ordinances that ban fluoride. It makes several other clarifications to a 1996 law, signed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a former San Diego mayor, that mandated fluoridation statewide. The law has never been fully implemented for various legal, technical and financial reasons.
In San Diego, the bill would help indemnify the city from lawsuits, assure the council that it has the right to override previous public votes against fluoridation and establish criteria to be used to determine costs.
There have been suggestions that municipalities have been using ambiguities in state law to stall implementation.
“I always thought that was a fig leaf,” said Assemblywoman Chris Kehoe, D-San Diego.
Assemblyman George Plescia, R-San Diego, said he supported the measure because it helps the City Council follow through on its earlier decision to put fluoride in the water.
“If the city does want to do it, the locals can make that decision,” he said.
San Diego would not be required to put fluoride in its water until funding was secured. The California Dental Association offered $4 million after the council endorsed fluoridation. The grant was withdrawn after implementation delays.
Most dentists say fluoridation is an important tool in fighting tooth decay and that widespread use helps lower the state’s cost of providing dental care to the poor.
Critics question its safety and have demanded studies on long-term health effects. Legislative foes said the measure still exposes water agencies to lawsuits and rate increases.
The late nature of the measure drew sharp attacks from the Sierra Club’s Bill Magavern and conservative Assemblyman Jay La Suer, R-La Mesa – traditional foes on many issues.
“It’s a last-minute, gut-and-amend (bill) that could have problems down the road,” La Suer said. “There’s no rush. Come back and do it right.”
Magavern said the rush to the legislation, which was introduced just a couple of weeks ago, “makes a mockery of openness and public participation.”
The Senate sent the measure to the governor, 31-3, yesterday. Besides Alpert, Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, and Dennis Hollingsworth, R-La Mesa, supported the bill. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, opposed it.
The Assembly passed the legislation a day earlier, 66-11. Voting for the bill in addition to Kehoe and Plescia were Juan Vargas, D-San Diego;, Shirley Horton, R-Bonita; and Mark Wyland, R-Del Mar. Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, and La Suer were opposed.
Print 
PDF