Camas City Council tackles water fluoridation issue

When it comes to water issues, the city of Camas has had its fill. Over the past few years, city officials have tackled everything from improving the water quality in its toxic-algae-prone lakes to finding solutions for elevated levels of harmful “forever chemicals” in the City’s drinking water. Now, Camas officials are considering yet another water issue and hearing from community members who want the City to stop adding fluoride to its public water system. Several speakers who attended the Camas City Council’s Dec. 2 workshop urged city officials to reconsider the practice of fluoridating the City’s water supply. Camas resident Geri Rubano urged the Council members to “end the practice of water fluoridation immediately … and take action to eliminate unreasonable risk to children by fluoridating water.” Many of the speakers who urged Camas officials to cease fluoridating the City’s water system brought up a recent court ruling against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ordered the federal agency to evaluate health risks associated with fluoridating drinking water. In a memo regarding that court ruling, the Washington State Department of Health also mentioned a recent Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program review that “found that excessive fluoride exposure can be associated with lower IQ in children.” In September, an Associated Press article noted that the ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, “is another striking dissent to a practice that has been hailed as one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century” and stated that, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing mineral lost during normal wear and tear.” During the Council’s Dec. 2 workshop, Vancouver resident Justin Forsman urged Camas officials to “take action before it’s mandated.” “When you wash your hands, you’re being exposed to fluoride. When you’re showering, you’re absorbing chlorine, all the pharmaceuticals people dump down the drain … and fluoride. We’re bombarded by toxins,” Forsman said. “Let’s take action now. We have all these panels, these studies … It’s important to save face and take action before it’s mandated. Doing the right thing is important. … I think history will look kindly on you for taking such action, and you will be an inspiration to all the other cities that were thinking about doing the same thing.” Council hears history of fluoride in drinking water Asked by Council members to give information about fluoride in the City’s drinking water system, Camas Public Works Director Steve Wall presented an 11-page Water System Fluoride Update to the Council during its Dec. 2 workshop. Wall said the act of fluoridating drinking water dates back to 1945, when the practice started in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since then, Wall said, a majority of public water systems in the United States have adopted the practice and, as of 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly 73% of U.S. residents now receive fluoride in their drinking water. Wall said he believes the city of Camas began the practice of fluoridating its water system in 1966, and said the City is one of about 50 Washington jurisdictions, which also includes the cities of Vancouver and Battle Ground, that fluoridate drinking water. The practice has “been very controversial” and has divided communities in the past, Wall said, noting that communities that represent more than four million Americans — including the city of Portland — have banned the practice since 2010. Wall also went through the list of “pros and cons” regarding the act of fluoridating drinking water systems, noting that proponents of the practice, which currently include the CDC and the U.S. Surgeon General, say fluoride — a chemical ion of fluorine, a naturally occurring element found in the Earth’s crust — has dental health benefits and that adding fluoride to drinking water costs “far less than the cost of dental needs.” Wall added that opponents of the practice say fluoride is a “toxic chemical with neurotoxic effects at low concentrations” that “violates individual freedoms.” In Washington state, Wall said, cities are not required to add fluoride to their drinking water systems but, instead, have a “community choice” option. “It is a community choice and always has been,” Wall said. “We’re not required to add fluoride in our water system, but, if we do, we have requirements from the Department of Health and EPA, including sampling, monitoring and notifications if needed.” The city of Camas, Wall added, has “never been out of compliance” with these requirements when it comes to fluoridating its drinking water system. Camas currently adds 0.7 milligrams of fluoride for every liter of public drinking water, Wall added, and buys in bulk from a local supplier who gets the fluoride from overseas. “There are no (fluoride) manufacturers we know of in the U.S. … They’re all overseas,” Wall told the Council on Dec. 2. “China, Japan and Germany are three of the bigger suppliers.” Camas’ fluoride comes from China, Wall added, and the City purchases it in 50-pound bags. The fluoride is then mixed in a tank that can meter it out in smaller doses to make sure the City is staying within the state’s required levels of 0.5 to 0.9 milligrams per liter. The fluoride itself costs the City around $30,000 a year, and Wall estimates it costs another $5,000 to $10,000 a year for employee time connected to the fluoridation process. Wall said the speakers who mentioned that the fluoride goes into the entire water system were correct. “We inject it as soon as it comes out of the well,” Wall said. “It goes into the system and it goes everywhere … it’s in the water you irrigate with, shower with, cook with, bathe with. So, the ingestion piece is always interesting. It might be two to four gallons a day you ingest, in general.” The fluoridated water people in Camas are actually ingesting likely accounts for just 1% to 2% of the City’s entire water system, Wall said, adding that “the rest is going somewhere else … so that’s another consideration. Where is it going? Is there an environmental concern?” Wall said two of the City’s largest industrial employers — semiconductor chip manufacturers — actually strip the fluoride out of the water before it comes into their facilities. Council agrees to hold public hearing on issue As for the future of fluoridating public water systems, Wall told Council members that, although the district judge’s recent ruling means the EPA cannot ignore the risks associated with fluoride, “there is no deadline or timeline for making changes.” The EPA, Wall said, could do anything from requiring a warning label to banning the addition of fluoride in drinking water. “There also could be an appeal,” Wall said. If the EPA appeals it, they could slow-walk it and not do anything for however long.” City leaders have the option of waiting to see what might come from the EPA and from the incoming Trump administration, which has signaled it might be open to banning fluoride from drinking water systems. “It’s probably fair to say nothing’s going to happen this year, anyway,” Wall said. “But there are a variety of angles and directions they could take on this.” Wall told Council members that studies on the topic are varied. “One thing that comes back is it’s the amount of fluoride you’re ingesting that seems to be key,” Wall said. “If you’re taking very small amounts, is that OK? Maybe. Maybe not.” Wall said the City is “not under any obligation to change anything.” “We certainly can, if Council wants that,” Wall said, adding that, if the City does decide to change its fluoridation process, it must give the public — as well as the state’s Department of Health — 90 days’ notice and provide people with an opportunity to comment on the change. The majority of Council members agreed they would want to hear from the community before making any decisions about fluoride in the City’s water system, and asked Wall to get guidance from the state’s Department of Health and work with the city attorney to set up a date for a public hearing. At least three of the Council members — Tim Hein, Leslie Lewallen and Jennifer Senescu — indicated that they would be in favor of eliminating the addition of fluoride to the City’s drinking water. “In ‘66, it was probably a good idea, but we’ve learned more in the past (several) years. A lot of it is not going into the body, and if it does there are questions over ‘Should it be there?’” Hein said during the Dec. 2 workshop. “I’m in favor of eliminating it.”

Related Stories