How Other Cities said, NO!


NO! … on fluoridation :

City of La Mesa, CA – Helix Water District (250,000+ customers in East San Diego) March 9, 1999

Board of Directors directed their Staff to advise the CA Department of Health and Human Services, a fluoridation task force coalition, and other water agencies and communities that they serve, that ‘Helix will reject any Grant offered them that would require that they add fluoride to their water.’ – March 9, 1999. Each of the Directors of the Helix Water District expressed the Reasoning behind their individual decision to reject converting their water supply into a delivery system for mass medication, noting that:

“the mission of their water district is to remove impurities by treating the water, not to add to them, or to medicate people.”

Helix is currently undergoing a $28 million upgrade and expansion program. The Board of Directors may soon consider the use of Ozonation; which would replace the use of Chlorine as a primary disinfectant.

City of Santa Cruz, CA

Voters of City of Santa Cruz affirmed, March 2, 1999:

…a 1998 ordinance enacted by their City Council that prohibited fluoridation without a vote of the people.

Santa Cruz ordinance prohibits the addition of any substance, including fluoride, which is intended to affect humans physically or mentally rather than for purposes to treat only the water.

City of Escondido, CA

Passed an ordinance following more than 40 speakers, and at times contentious discussion between Councilmembers:

prohibits the addition of any substance in the water, including fluoride, which is intended to treat humans, rather than improve the drink ability of the water.

Councilmember Keith Beier questioned:

whether health professionals endorsed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) revised policy recommendations for:

controlled dosage drops and tablets that are used as a substitute for fluoridated water in non fluoridated communities.

The revised policy recommendations were published by the AAP and the American Dental Assoc. (ADA) in 1995. The policy seeks:

to reduce risk of fluoride poisoning to Children.

considers over-exposure to fluoride from all sources, not just the water.

Infants should have no further exposure to fluoride even if there is no fluoride in their drinking water.

He also questioned why professionals were required to evaluate a child’s:


growth and development

unusual susceptibility

total exposure to fluoride from all sources

…before bring able to prescribe even 1/4 of what that child is expected to receive in water?

Brier noted:

that the amount of fluoride the State was intending to put into the water exceeded the amount that any health professional could ethically prescribe to a child under 6 years of age.

Brier stated, “After listening to hours of discrepancies between fluoridation proponents’ own facts and representations, and the recognition that the substance to be added to the water was an industrial hazardous waste, he was trying to determine what was driving the ADA and others to push so hard.” Referring to the millions of dollars paid to the ADA for the endorsement of fluoride products, Beier suggested that one should just “follow the money”. 

Santa Barbara, CA Nov. 23, 1999

By a 5 to 2 margin, the City Council of Santa Barbara voted in favor of a resolution that:

“…disagrees with and rejects the State’s recommendations to fluoridate the City’s public water system.”

Bremerton, WA February 1999

Citizens voted to keep fluoride out of the public water supply. Bremerton sits on the beautiful Kitsap Peninsula, just 16 miles from Seattle by ferry.

A large part of the Defeat of fluoridation was due to:

public interest in the health and safety of their children.

a televised debate between 2 sides helped clarify the issues of safety and usefulness.

Many of the claims by proponents just couldn’t be supported by research, as the polls later showed.


  • In the past 30 days, Lakeside and Riverview, California said no to water fluoridation and Escondido and Helix ratified rejection of the state’s fluoridation plan. In separate actions, the water boards and the Escondido city council rejected the state’s mandated fluoridation plan. On April 6, the Board of Directors of Lakeside Water District, which services east San Diego county, voted unanimously to oppose the addition of fluoride to their water system. They requested that Helix Water District, which wholesales water to Lakeside to ensure, “…that every means available and necessary is used to vigorously oppose putting fluoride in the water supply.” On March 24, the Riverview Board of Directors, which also receives wholesaled water from Helix
    through Padre Dam, supported Helix’s decision to reject a
    fluoridation grant, citing, “lack of evidence…to support the
    fluoridation of the area’s water supply.” On April 7, Helix Water District, ranked No. 1 on California’s fluoridation priority list, rejected a fluoridation grant. The District cited:
  • the complexity of controlling the dosage delivered to Helix
    customers and wholesale recipients when blended with
    other waters.
  • the health concerns for people who have negative physical
    reactions to fluoride while fluoride is readily available from
    other sources.
  • Helix’s central mission and focus to deliver pure water to its
    customers sister agencies’ objections to fluoridation.

Most Cities Say, No! to fluoride in Water. <Double-Click on Watering Can of ‘Pure’ Water to see List. >