Cal Communities Rejecting Fluoridation 2015-1952

California Water Districts and Communities Rejecting Fluoridation: 1952 to the Present

1952: Santa Rosa, Sonoma County – Rejected fluoridation (1952). 152 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule. Charter City.

1990: Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County – On their own initiative, City of Morgan Hill water department employees stopped ordering fluoridation chemicals for the 17 groundwater wells that are the City’s exclusive source of water (3/7/1990).

1993: Redwood Valley County Water District, Mendocino County / Board rejected fluoridation (2/6/1993)

1997: Suisun City, Solano County – (5/01/1997)

1999: Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County – City Council passed a resolution (5 to 2) disagreeing with and rejecting the State’s recommendation to fluoridate (11/23/1999). 9 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule. Charter City.

1999: Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County – City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting fluoridation without a vote of the people (1998), affirmed by Santa Cruz voters (3/2/1999). 12 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule. Charter City.

2001: Modesto, Stanislaus County – Unanimous vote of City Council following voter defeat of Measure M (11/7/2001).

2002: Watsonville, Santa Cruz County / Charter City / 98 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule / *******Watsonville is in compliance with the State fluoridation mandate. Its water supply is unfluoridated because funding was withdrawn due to higher than anticipated costs. Watsonville has no plans to seek fluoridation funding, but the State Dental Director (a newly created office, rewarding years of lobbying by the California Dental Association) will function as an enforcer-in-chief. The State Dental Director’s team is tasked with securing funding sources for the unfluoridated water systems on the CDPH Schedule.

Watsonville’s water supply is unfluoridated. HISTORY: In 2002, even though Watsonville had accepted a $946,000 grant to fund installation of the equipment, its citizens passed a deceptively-worded referendum (“Measure S”) to prohibit introduction of any substance into the city’s water that is not approved for safety and effectiveness by the federal Food and Drug Administration (the referendum’s target was fluoridation, which the FDA does not regulate). When Watsonville sued the State on the basis of the 2002 ballot measure, the trial court and the intermediate appellate court ruled in favor of the state and its fluoridation mandate, and the California Supreme Court declined to hear the case (2/2006), because a vote of the people has no standing if the California fluoridation mandate applies to a community. The Watsonville case was the occasion for the judgment that a vote of the people has no standing if the fluoridation mandate applies to a community. In 8/2010 Watsonville was cited for violating a California state law that requires fluoridating the water in a town over 10,000 active water connections when outside money becomes available. Therefore, in a 4-3 vote (9/28/2010), the City Council approved a contract for a $1.6 million grant from the California Dental Association (CDA) Foundation to design and build a fluoridation system, and operate it for two years. At least as late as 11/16/2011, Watsonville was still under a court order to treat its water. Eventually the CDA Foundation withdrew its initial funding offer, notifying the City that [between 2002 and 2012] costs had risen to the point that it was too expensive to pay for Watsonville water fluoridation infrastructure. Without funding from an outside source, there is no state requirement to fluoridate. According to sources at the Watsonville Public Works & Utilities Department, as of 12/2012, Watsonville had no plans to pursue fluoridation funding.

2002: Redding, Shasta County – Signatures gathered against fluoridation qualified the proposal for council adoption or a general election ballot measure. City Council opted for the ballot measure in which fluoridation was defeated (11/5/2002). 76 on the fluoridation priority funding schedule. Charter City.

2005: Mammoth Lakes, Mono County – Mammoth Lakes’ Safe Drinking Water Initiative passed with 72% of the vote (11/8/2005).

2008: Manila, Humboldt County – Advisory measure A, a proposal to fluoridate Manila water provided by Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD), was defeated 164 to 60 (2/2008).

2009: Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, Humboldt County – After the 2008 Manila vote, the District stopped looking into whether or not it would be the regional provider for fluoridated water” (2009).

2010: Napa, Napa County – City Council unanimously rejected a grand jury recommendation that the city apply for grants to install fluoridation equipment in its three water treatment plants (8/17/2010). 17 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule. Charter City.

2012: Crescent City, Del Norte County – Ballot measure A passed with 56% of the vote (11/6/2012).

2013: Olivehurst Public Utility District, Yuba County – OPUD Board voted 3 to 2 to stop fluoridating its water (2/22/2013).

2013: Davis, Yolo County – 4 to 1 City Council vote (10/01/2013) / 136 on the CDPH fluoridation priority funding schedule.

2013: Cotati, Sonoma County – Unanimous City Council vote (11/12/2013).

2013: Hoopa Indian Reservation, Humboldt County – Unanimous vote of the Hoopa Tribal Council (11/21/2013)

2014: Sebastopol, Sonoma County /Unanimous City Council vote to oppose fluoridation (2/4/2014).

2015: City of Sonoma, Sonoma County / City Council voted 3 to 2 to oppose fluoridation (3/2/2015).

2015: Valley of the Moon Water District, Sonoma County – VOM Board unanimous approval of Agenda Consent Calendar Item authorizing the President to sign and send the fluoride opposition letter to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (4/7/2015).