- Chambersburg Borough Council delayed a vote on a $200,000 water treatment plant upgrade due to a fluoride shortage.
- The current fluoride shortage is attributed to slowed production and tariffs, impacting the borough’s supply.
- Council will wait for the results of a new chemical contract bid on May 5 before making a decision.
- Local dentists and officials believe the fluoride shortage is temporary, while some citizens questioned the expense.
Volatility in the fluoride market has resulted in Chambersburg Borough Council voting to delay making a decision on whether to spend more than $200,000 to upgrade its water treatment plant.
A couple of weeks after the borough’s board of health recommended the upgrades required by the Department of Environmental Protection for the borough to continue adding fluoride to the public water system, council came to the April 20 meeting expecting to learn details and potentially vote on the project. However, a memo from the DEP that day about a fluoride shortage resulted in a change of plans.
“Some of it is politically driven. (Fluoride producers) were expecting a federal ban and most of these companies really slowed down production last year,” said Lance Anderson, water department supervisor. “We’re seeing it now, not having it available in the normal amounts that we would expect as a water utility. Tariffs have hurt us as well.”
The borough is already facing a shortage on its current supply of fluoride. When the borough went to order its usual 12-16 barrels of chemical in February, the vendor could only provide five. Anderson said he anticipates getting up to five more before the contract ends in June.
The borough will open bids for the water utility chemical contract on May 5, but it is possible no companies will bid on the fluoride contract. Anderson recommended council wait until then to vote on the water treatment plant upgrades.
“I think it would be beneficial to let us move through our bid cycle. After May 5, I’ll have a better idea on availability. I’ll have a better idea on the cost associated with it as well. Costs are going up.”
Council ultimately accepted that recommendation, voting 9-0 to table the agenda item to make a decision on the upgrade project required to maintain its fluoride program. Fourth ward representative John Huber was absent.
What did council members, citizens say?
David Wilson, first ward representative, said he sees the fluoride availability and the question of whether to fund the water treatment plant upgrades as two separate issues. The fluoride shortage won’t last forever, he said.
Anderson cautioned that the future isn’t foretold, and he shared that was a lesson learned by a town in Florida that spent $300,000 to add fluoride to its water supply only for Florida to ban fluoride in water a year later.
In response to a question from second ward representative Austin Rosenbaum, Anderson said there are other types of fluoride chemical that the borough could use, such as a liquid, but they would require changes to the treatment plant upgrade project.
“I hate to wait to make a decision, but maybe it makes sense to wait two or three weeks until we get this bid back to see if we can’t get the fluoride that we typically get,” Rosenbaum said.
Gary Davis, a Shippensburg-based dentist and member of the Cumberland Valley Dental Society and Pennsylvania Dental Association, said he and his colleagues also received the DEP memo and believe the shortage is temporary. Fluoride is a byproduct of making phosphate fertilizer, and the U.S. will not stop making that, he said.
“I think it’s good that you delay until you get more information, but we really do believe this is a temporary thing,” Davis said.
A few citizens spoke up to ask questions about the types of chemicals involved and how different varieties may affect the project. One woman said she would rather the borough spend the money on removing plastic from the water system.
Resident Evan Crider urged council to seek inspiration from his late relative Julio Lecuona, Chambersburg’s first borough manager and the person for whom the water treatment plant is named.
“If he were here still today, he would definitely be saying, ‘Whatever it takes,'” he said. “Fluoride should be a main component in our water systems to keep it clean, and I know …. you mentioned tariffs, unfortunately everything’s getting more expensive. No matter what it might be, whether it’s wood, rubber, metal, even chemicals for water.”
Former council members Heath Talhelm, Kathy Leedy and Herb Doloway all spoke in support of fluoride. Leedy said the cost for the borough to maintain fluoridation is “not great” compared to the public health benefits.
“I don’t understand why this is a political issue at all, and I would just encourage you to think about the public health advancements that fluoride has met all across this country for many generations,” she said.
Background on fluoride use in Chambersburg
In February, council was given the task to decide whether to spend more than $200,000 on needed updates to the system that adds fluoride to the municipal water supply or pay $12,000 to end the 62-year-old fluoridation program.
Fluoride is one of several chemicals added to the borough’s water supply at the Julio D. Lecuona Water Treatment Plant, which is located in Greene Township near the water source of the Conococheague Creek in Michaux State Forest. It is the only optional chemical, Anderson said.
The water treatment plant uses a “feed rate” of 0.7 mg of fluoride per liter of water, the amount recommended by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to maximize dental health benefits while minimizing potential harms. The guideline for water fluoridation was developed by a U.S. Public Health Service panel that considered all sources of fluoride intake.
That amounts to the water treatment plant using between 20 and 25 gallons of raw fluoride each day. Known as hydrofluosilicic acid, it is highly corrosive, according to Anderson.
Every three years the state Department of Environmental Protection evaluates the water treatment center. Updates are needed to address deficiencies found in past evaluations going back six years, Anderson said.
Most issues concern containment and separation of fluoride from other chemicals. In addition, the DEP found that the fluoride levels in the finished water that goes to customers were not maintained at permit levels.
It would cost about $224,000 to resolve those deficiencies and maintain fluoridation, Anderson said. An unused room would be repurposed as the fluoride feed room, with its own ventilation and heating systems and chemically resistant flooring and paint. There would be upgrades to the tanks and the system that adds the fluoride to the water and the addition of equipment to eliminate the need for staff manually moving the 600-lb. drums.
The borough also pays about $41,000 in annual costs for extra amounts of three chemicals to offset the acidity of fluoride.
Original article online at: https://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/local/2026/04/22/flouride-volatility-leads-chambersburg-to-delay-vote-on-water-upgrade/89712293007