- Chambersburg Borough Council is deciding between spending over $200,000 to update its water fluoridation system or $12,000 to end the program.
- The necessary updates address system deficiencies and safety concerns regarding the highly corrosive fluoride chemical.
- Ending fluoridation would save about $41,000 in annual chemical costs used to offset fluoride’s acidity.
- Former borough officials and public health data support continuing fluoridation for its dental health benefits.
Chambersburg Borough Council is considering 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.
Water department head Lance Anderson told council on Feb. 23 that his presentation was only to show the costs of the two options, but he acknowledged the use of fluoride in water has become a controversial topic.
“We are not discussing whether or not it’s effective, whether it’s safe, whether it’s beneficial. This is purely a cost summary of what it would take to continue feeding fluoride or removing fluoride from the water treatment facility,” he said.
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 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.
How much would it cost to keep fluoride in Chambersburg’s water?
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.
“Our raw water that comes in is acidic, so we are constantly trying to raise pH and alkalinity in water and fluoride because it’s a very strong acid, it’s hampering those effects,” Anderson said.
How much would it cost to end fluoridation of water in Chambersburg?
It would cost about $12,000 to stop adding fluoride to the borough’s water supply.
A permit package, sealed and notarized by a professional engineer, would be submitted to the DEP. The borough must prove that it provided advance notice to customers and medical professionals, and issue public notice again 30 days before fluoridation ends. The water treatment plant would be required to continue feeding fluoride until the DEP issues a new permit.
“This is a tough choice,” Anderson said. “Obviously you can never make everybody happy with this, but we have to — to not do something is not an option. We have to move forward with one of these options.”
Following an inquiry from first ward representative David Wilson, one of five councilmembers newly elected in November, Borough Manager Jeff Stonehill confirmed the fluoridation discussion would go before the borough’s board of health.
Former Chambersburg officials support fluoride use
Democrats Herb Doloway, who served one term on Borough Council until 2020 following a long career with the borough, and Heath Talhelm, a fifth-ward representative from 2006 to 2022, both spoke out in support of paying to maintain fluoridation during public comment time.
Doloway described growing up in a time without fluoride in the water, while his family could not afford dental work.
“So, we all lost our teeth. We’re all proud owners of full dentures, but it was part of I think the fluoride system, so I think it was a main preventative,” he said.
He criticized the use of the word “significant” in the meeting agenda to describe the cost of the capital project to keep fluoride and noted that the cost to the borough is comparable to a local businessman’s proposed painting project at the borough’s water tower off Nitterhouse Drive in Guilford Township.
Talhelm said the fluoride issue on the agenda inspired him to come to his first council meeting since leaving his seat. He said the cost of maintaining fluoride is not significant, particularly when compared to other unspecified but pricey capital projects.
“That’s significant. This is minor,” he said.
Asked for comment, Stonehill provided a statement via email: “Staff was using the opportunity of last night’s meeting to educate council about their options related to the upgrade of the fluoridation equipment at the water plant. It’s entirely up to council to decide the right way to proceed as it was for Mr Doloway and Mr Talhelm when they were on council. The item was referred to the Board of Health and we will see what they say. I think Lance did a good job of laying out the options.”
Data on fluoride use in Franklin County, PA, U.S.
Nearly 63% of all U.S. residents receive fluoride in their water, according to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control. Just over 72% of people on public water systems, like Chambersburg’s, receive fluoridated water.
Pennsylvania is among eight states in which at least one-quarter of the population receives water from private sources, which aren’t tracked, according to a report from U.S. News. Of the approximately 9 million people who receive public water in PA, 55% receive fluoridated water. It is ranked 40th across the U.S. for fluoridation.
In Franklin County, about 35.7% of residents receive fluoridated water from public water systems. In addition to Chambersburg, Waynesboro Water Authority and Bear Valley Joint Water Authority serving St. Thomas, Hamilton, Peters and part of Letterkenny townships add fluoride to their public water supplies, according to a report by the Pittsburgh Water Collaboratory, PA Coalition for Oral Health, and the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine.
The Guilford Township, Washington Township, Antrim Township, Greencastle and Mercersburg water authorities do not add fluoride.
Chambersburg began adding fluoride to its water system in 1964 amid a wave of widespread adoption in the U.S., Anderson said.
The CDC named water fluoridation one of 10 “great public health achievements of the 20th century,” based on evidence showing its impact on decreasing tooth decay. For example, children living in fluoridated communities have been shown to have 2.25 fewer decayed teeth than their peers elsewhere.
Intake of too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which effects enamel mainly on baby teeth and causes white, lacey markings in its most common form, according to the CDC. It can cause pitted teeth in rare, severe cases.
Amber South can be reached at asouth@publicopinionnews.com.
Original article online at: https://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/local/2026/02/25/chambersburg-considering-capital-project-to-keep-water-fluoridation/88841969007/