Featured News

results

EPA Denies Anti-Fluoride Petition

The EPA rejected a petition in August 2013 seeking to ban a form of fluoride that is commonly used to fluoridate drinking water, noting that petitioners lacked “sufficient facts” to support their case.

Tennessee Law Requires Public Notice

A Tennessee law enacted in 2012 requires local water systems to provide a minimum period of public notification before ceasing or starting fluoridation.

Baer v. City of Bend

Case Name: 
Baer v. City of Bend
Plaintiff: 
Baer
Defendant: 
City of Bend
Citation: 

206 Ore. 221; 292 P.2d 134 (Or. 1956)

Year: 
1956
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Oregon
Abstract: 

Plaintiff instituted an action against the City of Bend, seeking to enjoin the city from enforcing an ordinance for the introduction of inorganic fluoride chemicals into the water supply. According to plaintiff, the ordinance was an unconstitutional violation of due process, freedom of religion, and liberty rights secured by the United States and Oregon Constitutions. The Oregon Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments on the grounds that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city’s police powers, did not unreasonably invade liberty rights, and was remotely, if at all, related to religious practices or the authority of parents to rear their children.

State: 

Dowell v. City of Tulsa

Case Name: 
Dowell v. City of Tulsa
Plaintiff: 
Dowell
Defendant: 
City of Tulsa
Citation: 

273 P.2d 859; 43 A.L.R. 2d 445 (Okla. 1954)

Year: 
1954
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs appealed trial court’s denial of an injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing or complying with a local Tulsa ordinance authorizing the fluoridation of the city’s water supply. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance: (1) was an unconstitutional exercise of police power, (2) was enacted in excess of the powers granted to the city by the Oklahoma legislature, (3) was an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of religion, and (4) violated a state law regulating the manufacture and sale of food to which fluorine compounds had been added. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected all of plaintiffs’ arguments, holding that the prevention of dental caries was within the city’s police power, and that the fluoridation measure was reasonably necessary to achieve this goal.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Blackbird

Yiamouyiannis v. Chemical Abstracts Service

Case Name: 
Yiamouyiannis v. Chemical Abstracts Service
Plaintiff: 
John Yiamouyiannis
Defendant: 
Chemical Abstracts Service, et al.
Citation: 

578 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1989)

Year: 
1978
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Abstract: 

This case is relevant because plaintiff alleged wrongful firing due to his opposition to fluoridation. Plaintiff alleged that Chemical Abstracts Service was federally funded and that he was wrongfully discharged for his opposition to fluoridation. The Sixth Circuit determined that the fact that Congress chartered an organization otherwise private in character does not render the action of the officers of the organization state action, and denied plaintiff’s claim.

State: 

State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich

Case Name: 
State ex rel. Lehmann v. Cmich
Plaintiff: 
Lehmann
Defendant: 
Cmich
Citation: 

23 Ohio St. 2d 11; 260 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1970)

Year: 
1970
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

Relator sought a writ of prohibition against officers of the City of Canton, which was about to start fluoridating its water supply under state law. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that: (1) a writ of prohibition was improper where, as here, the officer was unable to exercise any discretion, and (2) a writ of prohibition was inappropriate where there was an adequate remedy at law.

State: 

Kraus v. City of Cleveland

Case Name: 
Kraus v. City of Cleveland
Plaintiff: 
Kraus
Defendant: 
City of Cleveland, et al.
Citation: 

163 Ohio St. 559; 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955)

Year: 
1955
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio
Abstract: 

Plaintiff brought an action seeking a permanent injunction restraining the city from enforcing a fluoridation ordinance. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance infringed upon his fundamental liberties and was enacted in excess of the city’s authority under state law. According to plaintiff, the ordinance did not promote public health because it did not concern contagious or infectious disease. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected plaintiff’s arguments, holding that the prevention of dental caries was a proper public health matter for the city to regulate, and that the introduction of fluoride into the municipal drinking water did not violate plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Matthias J

Crotty v. City of Cincinnati

Case Name: 
Crotty v. City of Cincinnati
Plaintiff: 
Crotty
Defendant: 
City of Cincinnati
Citation: 

50 Ohio St. 2d 27; 361 N.E.2d 1340 (Ohio 1977)

Year: 
1977
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Ohio, First Appellate District
Abstract: 

Taxpayers and water users filed an action in trial court alleging that the City of Cincinnati’s contemplated fluoridation program, as directed by the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s order, would deprive them of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ appeal was before the Ohio Supreme Court upon the sole issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the applicability of Canton v. Whitman, 44 Ohio St. 2d 62; 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975). The court held that plaintiffs’ argument that fluoridation infringed upon religious freedom and equal protection were matters that could have been litigated in the prior action. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claim that fluoride is a carcinogen, because state law provided an exclusive statutory scheme for review of the EPA Director’s actions by the Environmental Review Board. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.

State: 

City of Canton v. Maynard

Case Name: 
City of Canton v. Maynard
Plaintiff: 
City of Canton, et al.
Defendant: 
Robert H. Maynard, et al.
Citation: 

766 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1985)

Year: 
1985
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiff city filed an action against the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally enforcing the state’s fluoridation laws. According to plaintiff, the statute violated federal equal protection and due process rights on the grounds that the Ohio EPA was not enforcing the fluoridation requirement against cities that opted under state statute to hold a referendum not to fluoridate their water supplies. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court ‘s determination that plaintiffs’ case was barred under principles of res judicata.

State: 

Pages

Recent State and Local Action

results

Missouri :: Ordinance :: Sullivan

Abstract: 

Sullivan's City Council passed Ordiance 3667, eliminating the city's fluoridation requirement, repealing Sullivan Code 705.050. 

See also James B. Bartle, Fluoridation Repealed In Sullivan, Three Ordinances Approved, Sullivan Independent News (June 2, 2015), available at http://www.mysullivannews.com/2015/06/fluoridation-repealed-in-sullivan-....

 

Last updated: June 19, 2015.  

 

Citation: 
Title: 
Chapter: 
Article: 
Legislation Type: 
Locality: 
Part: 
Division: 
Ordinance: 
Subchapter: 
Rule: 
Section: 
State: 

Michigan :: Ordinance :: West Branch

Abstract: 

On June 1, 2015, West Branch City Counsel voted 6-1 to increase water fluoridation levels to the state and Federal recommended 0.7 ppm. See Matt Varcak, "City votes to increase level of fluoride in the water," Ogemaw County Herald (June 1, 2015), available at http://www.ogemawherald.com/stories/City-votes-to-increase-level-of-fluoride-in-water,101683.   

 

Last updated June 19, 2015.

Citation: 
Title: 
Chapter: 
Article: 
Legislation Type: 
Locality: 
Part: 
Division: 
Ordinance: 
Subchapter: 
Rule: 
Section: 
State: 

New York :: Administrative Code

Abstract: 

The additions to the New York Public Health Code prevent jurisdictions already participating in water fluoridation from ceasing their program without first providing a notice to the public and a ninety-day comment period.

Citation: 

NY PUB HEALTH § 1100–a

Date Adopted: 
Mon, 04/13/2015
Title: 
Chapter: 
Legislation Type: 
Statute
Article: 
Locality: 
Part: 
Division: 
Ordinance: 
Subchapter: 
Rule: 
Section: 
State: 

West Virginia :: Local Authority :: Clarksburg

Abstract: 

Clarksburg, WV has voted to take bids for all of its water treatment chemicals save for fluoride, essentially ending water fluoridation in the jurisdiction.  See http://wvmetronews.com/2015/05/11/clarksburg-water-board-votes-to-end-practice-of-fluoridation/.  The Water Board has decided to continue to discuss the issue even after not voting to fund any fluoride contracts. See http://www.theet.com/news/local/water-board-to-resume-discussions-about-fluoride/article_4000700a-30b8-5d34-a8db-bb29463c472c.html

Last Updated: May 19, 2015

Michigan :: Ogemaw County :: Consideration

Abstract: 

The West Branch (Michigan) city counsel will consider whether to add fluoride to its water supply in the near future.  See http://ogemawherald.com/stories/City-to-consider-adding-additional-fluor....

 

Last updated: April 10, 2015.  

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS