Davis to vote on fluoridation in '04

FARMINGTON — The question of whether to continue fluoridating the water in Davis County will be on the ballot next year, which means residents in the next year will be angered, amused, frightened or bored as opposing sides duke it out.

A dozen people attended the Davis County Commission's regular meeting this week, and several expressed their views — pleas to keep fluoride out of the water because it is a toxic poison as well as requests to keep it in the water for the betterment of residents' health.

At the beginning of the meeting, Chairman Dannie McConkie made a point of telling the nearly packed room that while the meeting was public, it was not a public hearing. He asked visitors not to shout out and keep the meeting dignified. And dignified it was, with no shouting, just polite questions and statements from those in the room.

All Davis County cities have fluoridated water except Woods Cross, which has its own water system and did not vote for fluoridation.

McConkie said he is in favor of allowing people to vote on the matter. The resolution, as approved, asks voters whether they want fluoride to continue to be added to their water.

Jerry Hess, deputy county attorney, told the commission a statute authorized by the Legislature allows a vote for the removal of fluoride. In the case of Woods Cross, he said, the city could ask its voters if they want fluoride put into their water.

"It's the right of the people to express their views at the ballot box in 2004," McConkie said. "Water systems have spent a lot of money to put fluoride in the water and if it goes on the ballot and passes, there is no way to recover the costs of equipment."

"The job of the commission today is not to determine whether fluoride is good or bad, but to decide if Davis County people can have another vote on fluoride at the ballot box."

Bountiful resident David Irvine, a lawyer who represents Utahns for Better Dental Health, disputed whether commission action was necessary. He believes the commission can't lawfully call for a vote without affecting all the county's constituencies.

In response to a question about how the resolution was drafted, McConkie said it was written by the commissioners with help from the County Attorney's Office.

"There have been a great many requests for the resolution, but the Davis County Commission drafted it," he said.

Irvine offered to sit down with the county and rework the resolution, which he called "legally flawed."