Sumner’s decision last week to stop fluoridating its water ended a debate that grew intense and at times took on an us-against-the-outsiders tenor.
But the question of fluoridation remains unsettled in several other pockets of Pierce County.
Two other utilities that started adding the cavity-fighting compound to their water under orders of the local health department continue to do so, despite the recent state Supreme Court ruling that makes it optional. And four more are waiting for their customers to tell them what to do.
Puyallup might be the next water supplier to put the matter to rest. The City Council will meet Monday to discuss fluoridation – an issue that, unlike in neighboring Sumner, has not produced an overwhelming public response on either side.
“I get calls and e-mails from people in favor of fluoridation and from people who are against it,” said Puyallup Mayor Kathy Turner. “I’ve even gotten some calls from people who think we have already started it, and some people in Puyallup do have fluoride because their water comes from Tacoma.”
Whatever Puyallup decides will have a longer reach than most other cities still wrestling with fluoridation. The third-largest city in the county draws people to regional facilities such as Good Samaritan Hospital and the Puyallup Fairgrounds, which use city water. The Puyallup council voted 5-2 in May 2002 to go ahead with fluoridation, but it’s reopening the discussion after rejecting bids last month to add equipment to its water plant. There was an $182,655 shortfall between the lowest bid and the $254,500 the city budgeted for the job.
Though no votes will be taken Monday, Turner said the council will likely focus on the cost of continuing to develop and maintaining the system, whether it will require rate increases for consumers and, if so, whether the idea is worth pursuing.
In 2002, the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health ordered fluoridation for 14 local water suppliers, each serving more than 5,000 consumers. Sumner, Milton and others complied, but another group of cities, including Bonney Lake and Lakewood, appealed.
Puyallup was in the process of developing its system when the state Supreme Court overruled the order May 13. It was not among the water suppliers that signed contracts to receive health department grants, which officials said obligated them to fluoridate.
Turner said Puyallup had public hearings before the case came before the state Supreme Court, but it hasn’t conducted customer opinion polls.
Milton had a public hearing on fluoridation July 5. Mayor Katrina Asay said the overwhelming majority of attendees were against continuing fluoridation.
The Milton City Council will likely make a decision Aug. 16 at its next official meeting, she said. Until then, fluoride will be added to the water.
Fluoridation also will continue in the Parkland Light & Water district, at least until the supplier gets back surveys to gauge customer opinion, said general manager Jim Sherill. He said that should happen within about 60 days.
The rest of those involved in the successful health board challenge are not treating their water with the compound.
Lakewood plans to put the question to voters on the November ballot. But most fellow challengers – including Spanaway Water Co., Fruitland Mutual Water Co., Mountain-View-Edgewood Water Co., and the City of Bonney Lake – have decided to stick with unfluoridated water.
Firgrove Mutual Water Co. is sending out an informal survey in the next month or two, said Tom Sawyer, company water quality technician.
Bob Blackman, general manager of the Southwood and Sound companies, could not be reached for comment. In an earlier interview he told The News Tribune that the companies’ board would decide what to do in the next few months.
The board of Summit Water & Supply Co. has a committee looking into it, but manager Jim Haneline said a decision is a year or so away.
The committee is collecting data on dental costs and exploring alternatives, such as adding fluoride to school water supplies, he said.
“It may turn out to be a lower cost for us to pick up the dental payments for the uninsured children that the health board is targeting with this,” Haneline said, adding that only 13 percent of households in the district have children.
“We would present that information to our membership and see how important this is to them and which costs they are willing to pay.”
Health board members, dentists and other fluoride proponents aim to prevent oral disease in children, especially those in poverty. They cite multiple studies that say fluoride prevents tooth decay.
But opponents, in addition to disapproving of the extra costs, say ingesting fluoride produces negative side effects, especially for people getting cancer treatment or with other medical conditions. Putting it in the water supply, they say, amounts to forced medication.
Print 
PDF