A group of citizens is legally challenging the City of Hood River for not revealing that “dirty fluoride” could be added to the water supply.

Six residents, joined by Columbia Riverkeeper, contend the city’s ballot language on the fluoridation issue is “unfair and misleading.”

They said voters have not been fully informed about other “contaminants” that would be added to the water along with fluoride.

“How many people would vote to put fluoride in our water if they knew it came from industrial waste and was contaminated with lead and arsenic?” asked plaintiff Kimberly Folts.

However, Bob Francis, city manager, said the summary of Resolution 2004-19 clearly states that the city will follow state guidelines for fluoridation.

He said the amount and type of additive will be subject to approval from the Public Health Division of the Oregon Department of Human Services.

In addition, he said the state would oversee equipment installation and train fluoridation plant operators to correctly supplement the water supply.

Councilor Charles Haynie proposed the referendum to address the issue of lower-income families not getting adequate dental care.

Following a heated debate, he gained three other votes from council members in favor of having citizens make the final decision at the Nov. 2 general election.

Haynie declined to comment, saying it would not be appropriate for an individual councilor to speak on the new legal issue.

“This is not a clandestine measure. At every step of the way we have informed the public about what we were doing and we will continue to do so,” Francis said.

Mosier attorney Brent Foster, representing the concerned citizens, argues that Hood River — like most municipalities — cannot afford the pharmaceutical grade of fluoride typically found in toothpaste.

Therefore, he said voters should have been alerted that the likely choice would be one of three “dirty fluoride” compounds that are by-products of commercial fertilizer and the aluminum industry.

Foster said that distinction is important since fluoride derived from chemical waste contains contaminants such as arsenic and lead that pose serious health risks.
He said deferring to the state about which of the three supplements to use still does not absolve the city of its duty to fully inform the electorate.

According to Foster, that information should have been revealed even if the city followed past arguments that sodium fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid posed little risk at low levels.

“The real issue here is disclosure. Whether you are for fluoridation or against fluoridation the city should be straightforward about the issue,” Foster said.

Folts and Columbia Riverkeeper were joined in the legal action by Katie Cleary, Kathy Eastman, Erik Eastman, Eric Voigt and Raquel Guttierrez. In a court brief filed on Thursday, the plaintiffs also contend the city avoided addressing a secondary issue. According to past city engineering reports, calcium carbonate would also have to be added to the water to keep fluoride from pitting older pipes and causing lead to leach into the system.

“This is the opening salvo over the issue of fluoride,” Foster said. “The real choice facing Hood River is whether it wants pure water or water that has an industrial waste additive.”

Francis said the court will make a ruling on the challenge to the ballot by the end of next week. The city council will discuss the outcome of the citizen protest at the Aug 23 meeting. In order to qualify the referendum for the Nov. 2 general election, the city must submit the measure to the Lee Shissler, county elections supervisor, by Sept. 2.

Print PDF