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.

Rogowski v. City of Detroit

Case Name: 
Rogowski v. City of Detroit
Plaintiff: 
Rogowski
Defendant: 
City of Detroit
Citation: 

374 Mich. 408; 132 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. 1965)

Year: 
1965
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Michigan
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City of Detroit seeking to enjoin it from enforcing a water fluoridation ordinance and to have the ordinance declared illegal and void. Plaintiffs alleged that the city lacked authority under state law or its charter to issue the ordinance, and they went on to allege a long list of the harmful effects of fluoridation. Defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment in the court below on the grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint raised no genuine issue of material fact, but presented only expressions of opinions and questions of law for court determination. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decision below, holding that the court may take judicial notice of the common knowledge or belief, as evidenced by the public statements, affidavits and official actions presented by defendants, that fluoridation is beneficial to prevent dental caries and so improve public health.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Dethmers JK

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle

Case Name: 
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
Plaintiff: 
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Defendant: 
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Citation: 

578 F.2d 337; 188 U.S. App.D.C. 95 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

Year: 
1978
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiff, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), challenged the adequacy of interim regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) on the grounds that they failed to restrict levels of certain substances that may be harmful, including fluoride, and failed to require the adequate monitoring of other substances. The court (1) determined that the challenged actions concerning the regulation of inorganic substances, including fluoride, fell within the limits of discretion delegated to the agency under the SDWA, and (2) deferred final resolution of whether the EPA’s failure to control total organics in the interim regulations was responsive to the SDWA’s provisions and remanded the matter to the EPA so that it could consider new sources of data and advise the court of its determination as to whether it plans to propose amended interim regulations in light of newly acquired data.

Opinion Judges: 
Leventhal

New Haven Water Company v. City of New Haven

Case Name: 
New Haven Water Company v. City of New Haven
Plaintiff: 
New Haven Water Company
Defendant: 
City of New Haven
Other Parties: 
Town of Hamden
Citation: 

152 Conn. 563; 210 A.2d 449 (Conn. 1965)

Year: 
1965
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Abstract: 

Defendants appeal a judgment below in favor of plaintiffs, two privately owned public water utilities. Plaintiff furnished water to eleven municipalities, only two of which had enacted ordinances requiring fluoridation of the public water supply. Plaintiffs sought injunctions restraining the two municipalities from enforcing the fluoridation ordinances against them, arguing the ordinances were in conflict with Connecticut’s policy to reserve to itself the control of public service corporations serving more than one community. The court agreed and affirmed the lower court’s injunctive relief.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
King

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA

Case Name: 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA
Plaintiff: 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Defendant: 
Environmental Protection Agency and EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas
Other Parties: 
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Citation: 

812 F.2d 721; 259 U.S. App. D.C. 5 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

Year: 
1987
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs Natural Resources Defense Council and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control challenged an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule establishing a recommended maximum contaminant level under the Safe Drinking Water Act for fluoride in drinking water. The court upheld the EPA’s rule as within the bounds of the agency’s permissible discretion.

Opinion Judges: 
Ginsburg RB, Bork, Buckley

Hattie v. Thomas

Case Name: 
Hattie v. Thomas
Plaintiff: 
Mary A. Hattie, et al.
Defendant: 
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Citation: 

22 ERC (BNA) 1728 (N.D. Ohio 1985)

Year: 
1985
Court Name: 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal district court seeking to have the EPA bring an action against the State of Ohio to stop the fluoridation of the Canton municipal water supply. Plaintiff challenged an Ohio state law that provided for fluoridation of public water supplies, arguing that it violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted defendants’ motion, holding that plaintiffs’ failed to allege a violation by the EPA of some non-discretionary duty, and that the Ohio statute in question did not violate the SDWA or any regulation promulgated under the EPA.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Bell SH

Miller v. City of Evansville

Case Name: 
Miller v. City of Evansville
Plaintiff: 
Miller et al.
Defendant: 
City of Evansville et al.
Citation: 

247 Ind. 563; 219 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. 1966)

Year: 
1966
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Indiana
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City of Evansville seeking an injunction to restrain the City from fluoridating the City’s water supply. The parties stipulated that there was not, nor had there ever been, a city ordinance in the City authorizing or directing the City to fluoridate the public water supply. The court found that only the common council of the City possessed the power, under appropriate proceedings, to enact an ordinance providing for the fluoridation of the city water. The court held that the stipulation entered into showed conclusively that the city council had not exercised that power and that no authority existed to fluoridate the water supply.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Jackson JM

Welcome to FLUID

What is FLUID? The Fluoride Legislative User Information Database is a comprehensive database containing historical information on legal cases decided by U.S. courts and current information on federal and state policies regarding community water fluoridation. Local policies that affect significant U.S. population bases are being added over time. Why was FLUID created?

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