- Hanover Borough Council has delayed a decision on whether to stop adding fluoride to the public water supply.
- The postponement motion called for more public awareness and to gather more information for the council.
- The water system, which has added fluoride since 1972, serves approximately 49,000 customers across several municipalities.
Hanover officials hit pause on a proposal that would put a stop to the borough’s practice of adding fluoride to local drinking water.
The proposal initially advanced out of the March 12 meeting of Hanover’s four-person Water & Sewer Committee, which voted to pass their recommendation for the removal of fluoride to the council.
After much discussion at its Wednesday, March 18, meeting, the 10-person Borough Council deadlocked on a motion to postpone the vote. Mayor Heidi Hormel eventually broke the tie, siding with the five members who favored postponement.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay. About one-third of community water systems — 17,000 out of 51,000 across the U.S. — serving more than 60% of the population fluoridated their water, according to a 2022 CDC analysis.
A growing number of municipal water systems across the United States, however, are reversing course over concerns about the safety of fluoride.
The CDC reports that the discontinuation of supplemental fluoridation triggers an on-average 25% increase in cavities and dental costs across a community.
Around $6.5 billion in dental costs each year are estimated to be saved nationwide, according to the CDC, which recognizes fluoridation as one of the nation’s “most successful public health campaigns” with the campaign triggering a “dramatic decline in cavities since community water fluoridation started in 1945.”
Locally, York Water Co. does not add fluoride to the water, except in West Manheim Township’s supply. That system was purchased by York Water Co. in 2007 with the understanding that it would continue to add fluoride to the supply, according to the utility.
Removing fluoride from water treatment is considered a “substantial modification” by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and would require a “major permit amendment before cessation of water fluoridation.”
It was not immediately clear whether the topic would appear again at a future Hanover Borough Council meeting, or if a decision would be pushed back further.
Council member Isaac Riston initially made the motion to postpone the discussion, citing the need for the council to receive more information from staff, and to ensure the public served by the system is aware that the proposed change was being considered.
Riston explained in the discussion that, by motioning to postpone, the council can continue having the conversation, rather than a tabling motion, which would shut down the conversation. The postponement did not come with a timeframe, Riston said in discussion, which he said was “to allow staff as much time as possible to bring it back.”
The motion to postpone was seconded by Chuck Hegberg, then voted in favor of by council members Riston, Hegberg, Barb Rupp, Brian Fuentes, and Tim Kress. Opposed were council members Scott Roland, Matthew Funk, Brad Scott, Greg Bubb, and Darlene Funk.
In her tie-breaking vote, Hormel expressed her view that postponement was necessary so that staff could bring back more information to the council, and so that the public was better informed prior to a decision being made.
“Not just in the borough, but in the townships, too,” Hormel said of the importance of ensuring that the municipality’s neighbors are kept informed.
In addition to serving Hanover Borough, the local water system also offers services to residents in Penn Township, Conewago Township, and McSherrystown Borough, along with partial service to Heidelberg Township. In all, the system serves roughly 49,000 customers, records show.
“The borough has been countlessly accused of not being good neighbors with municipalities,” Riston said, expressing his view that seeking their input prior to any decision was vital to “being a good neighbor.”
Following the vote to postpone the discussion, councilman Fuentes emphasized the need for a public presentation on the subject prior to any future decision on the subject.
“I would like to hear all of this,” Fuentes said, “and I think the public would too.”
Addition dates to 1972
While the addition of fluoride to water systems around the United States began in 1945, records show that Hanover Borough has been treating drinking water with fluoride since 1972 as part of a voluntary addition to their treatment permit.
In the most recent water quality report issued by Hanover’s water system, tests showed 0.65 parts per million of fluoride in Hanover’s drinking water. Officials shared that the tests are taken three times a day, and the system as a whole is tested two times a week.
At the measured ratio of 0.65 parts per million, one gallon of Hanover’s public water would include roughly 0.0000832 ounces of fluoride, a number that works out to roughly one one-thousandth of a single drop from an eyedropper.
While officials shared that there is a baseline of fluoride in the Hanover water supply due to it being a natural mineral found in plants and soil, the natural level in much of the United States sits below the level recommended for dental health.
The current level recommended by state and federal officials for dental health is 0.7 parts per million, a number that is often lower than the natural levels of the mineral in freshwater across several regions of the world, including India, China, and Iran.
Fluoride is also commonly found in packaged and bottled beverages, as many bottling facilities utilize public water systems or draw from springs or aquifers where fluoride is naturally present. In these cases, companies are not typically required to provide the fluoride content unless additional fluoride is added by the manufacturer.
Water director cites supply shortages, rising costs.
Prior to the vote, Hanover Director of Water and Wastewater Treatment Tony Thomas took questions from the council and shared a memo he had written about the proposal, with Thomas primarily discussing the logistical and financial aspects.
Thomas explained that if the municipality applied for a permit to stop using fluoride, it would likely take around six months to receive the permit.
Part of that process, Thomas said, was a “tier two notice” which would mandate that Hanover shares information and notices about the proposed change with the public.
On the topic of supply concerns, Thomas said it’s become increasingly difficult to find a fluoride supplier in the region.
Hanover issues requests for bids for a supplier each year, Thomas said, and previously received three potential fluoride suppliers in 2025. In 2026, however, only one company issued a bid, he said.
The bid for 2026 was awarded to Univar Solutions, with the contract set to begin on April 1, Thomas told the council.
Univar has indicated that they were “at least 30 days out” and were “unsure when they were going to get it,” he said.
With that uncertainty, Thomas explained, the water system may simply run out of fluoride by the time they receive their next shipment.
“It might come down to the fact that we have four weeks of fluoride left,” Thomas said. “There might not even be a debate.”
While Hanover opted voluntarily to add fluoride to the water system in 1972, the system is required to meet the testing standards for fluoride levels under Hanover’s water permit, Thomas said.
Despite being a voluntary addition to the permit, if water tests do not reach the required levels listed on the permit, the state would still consider that as a violation of Hanover’s permit, he said.
Amid discussion with councilman Hegberg, Thomas shared that on the day of the vote, March 18, state DEP officials had offered to allow Hanover to obtain a temporary emergency permit amendment, which would remove the risk of being found in violation of their permit until the supply of fluoride is restored.
Borough manager Margie Lewis then quickly made a note to the council that the emergency permit was separate from the vote under consideration in the meeting to apply for a permit to permanently discontinue the use of fluoride.
“It’s kind of ironic that we’re having this discussion and we got that information from them today,” Lewis said. “I don’t want the two things to be confused.”
“That does not impact your decision on this, whether it’s tonight or it’s down the road,” she told the council.
Thomas said that he is hoping that he will be able to get enough from the supplier to hold for “another few months, that way we can continue the discussion.”
In addition to a shortage, Thomas said that costs for fluoridation have grown by around 87% in the last year.
While water fluoridation cost Hanover around $23,000 in 2025, Thomas said that the costs have since risen to $40,000 in 2026. If Univar is unable to deliver its order on time in April, Thomas said that the municipality may have to seek supplies on the open market, without suppliers being held to a bid price.
A year prior, in the March 2025 meeting of the water committee, Thomas had referred to fluoride as “one of the least expensive items we add,” and that it “does not affect overall water quality.”
In addition to supply cost, in a memo presented to council prior to the meeting, Thomas said the equipment the components of Hanover’s fluoridation system, “including chemical feed pumps, storage tanks, and monitoring equipment, have reached or exceeded their expected service life,” stating that the continued operation of these components “increases the likelihood of equipment failure and unplanned maintenance.”
During the meeting, when asked what those costs may look like, Thomas shared that the pumps used are around $7,000 to $8,000 to replace.
“It could last two years, it could last five,” Thomas said.
“In the grand scheme of things, it probably isn’t a great big number,” Thomas said of the costs, “but every little bit helps.”
While Thomas did not delve far into the health aspects of fluoridation that are the subject of significant public debate, Thomas said employee safety was a concern for him regarding his staff handling bulk chemicals at the treatment plant.
When asked by Funk if he believed there was concern among his staff over the risk of handling fluoride at the plant and if they were screened for any illnesses, Thomas responded that fluoride was one of several bulk chemicals regularly handled by his staff, who have safety methods in place.
In his memo, Thomas wrote that the raw substance requires “specialized handling, storage, and spill response procedures,” which the memo argued the discontinuation of would reduce “occupational safety risks to plant personnel and lower overall facility liability.”
No distinction was made for the continued handling and storage of other bulk chemicals that would remain in use at the Hanover treatment plant, including chlorine, added as a water disinfectant, and aluminum sulfate, alum, added as a coagulant.
‘More important than my personal checking account’
The split vote by council wasn’t the only evidence of the divide in opinions during the meeting, with public comment featuring both advocates and opponents.
Among those who spoke was local Hanover dentist Max Safran, who shared his perspective on health benefits he said he had seen in the community from the use of fluoride.
While he noted that, if fluoride were removed, the increased need for dental care in the community would mean more clients and money for his dental practice, he strongly voiced his opposition to the potential removal.
“I’m here because what’s more important than my personal checking account is the water that my son will consume, the water that my neighbors will consume, and the water that I will consume,” Safran said.
The monetary cost of adding fluoride, Safran expressed, is “offset by how much dental spending and suffering it will prevent.”
“Fluoride is a safety net for kids and adults who don’t have access to care otherwise,” the dentist said, adding that removing fluoride could result in hundreds of children in the Hanover area suffering “years of being dental cripples.”
In addition to comments from residents, representatives from the Pennsylvania Dental Hygienists’ Association and the Pennsylvania Coalition for Oral Health also spoke in support of fluoride use.
More than 100 health organizations, including the CDC, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Dentists Association, maintain that water fluoridation is safe and effective at the levels used in
Among residents who spoke against the proposal was a Hanover estate attorney, Muriel Crabbs, who identified herself as having recently given a presentation in a rental of the Hanover public library on Feb. 7 against the use of fluoride.
The presentation was promoted on social media by former mayor SueAnn Whitman and was attended by several members of the Hanover Borough council.
Among council members who spoke against the use of fluoride, councilman Funk said that he would be opposed to continuing the use of fluoride due to his concerns over employee safety, cost, and what he said was a perceived lack of public support for its use.
Councilwoman Funk expressed her view that the water authority did not have the authority to decide what is in its drinking water, then claimed low-income families could buy toothpaste or seek assistance with covering dental expenses.
When pressed by councilwoman Rupp for an example of what aid is readily available for dental health, Funk cited an initiative of the Catholic church that assists women with unplanned pregnancies.
Public skepticism over the mineral’s addition to drinking water has been prevalent since communities first began intentionally supplementing the fluoride in their water in 1945. By around 2010, roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population had access to drinking water with fluoride added.
In June of 2025, local Pa. Sen. Dawn Keefer, R-York, proposed a state ban on the water treatment, though the ban did not make it out of committee.
Original article online at: https://www.eveningsun.com/story/news/local/2026/03/20/hanover-borough-pa-council-delays-vote-on-discontinuing-fluoride-in-water/89225431007/