SALT LAKE CITY — A groundbreaking move in Utah is set to make history as lawmakers push forward a ban on water fluoridation. The measure, H.B. 81, known as the Fluoride Amendments, has been passed by the state legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature, which he has indicated he intends to provide. If signed, Utah will become the first state in the nation to prohibit fluoridation in public water systems.
Potential Savings for Residents and Cities
One of the key arguments in favor of the ban has been cost reduction. Legislators backing the bill claim that removing fluoride from public water systems will lower expenses for both residents and municipalities. However, while city budgets may see some relief, individual households are unlikely to notice significant changes in their water bills.
Minimal Impact on Monthly Water Bills
For most residents, the cost associated with fluoridation is a small fraction of their overall water bill. Many Utah cities, including Riverton, South Jordan, and West Jordan, obtain their water from external sources, meaning they do not fluoridate it themselves but only conduct quality testing. As a result, the direct financial impact on customers is expected to be negligible.
According to Water Pros INC, a primary water supplier in Draper, the projected savings for individual customers would be less than a dollar per month. Meanwhile, Sandy City officials noted that there might be an initial increase in water bills to cover the costs of removing fluoridation infrastructure and disposing of existing fluoride supplies. However, in the long run, residents could see small savings once these adjustments are complete.
Bigger Financial Implications for Municipalities
While individual customers may not see substantial savings, cities and water districts stand to benefit more from eliminating fluoridation. These entities currently bear the burden of purchasing fluoride, maintaining fluoridation systems, and ensuring compliance with public health standards.
Sandy City officials estimate they spend around $53,600 annually on fluoridation-related expenses. This includes labor costs for monitoring systems, equipment maintenance, and computerized fluoride distribution. By discontinuing fluoridation, cities will no longer incur these recurring costs, though they must first navigate the financial challenge of decommissioning existing systems.
Fluoride Disposal and Supply Management
A major concern arising from the ban is what will happen to the remaining fluoride stockpiled by municipalities. Unlike other chemicals, fluoride cannot easily be resold or redistributed. Cities must determine how to safely dispose of any excess before the ban takes effect.
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD), a key supplier in Salt Lake County, anticipates using up approximately 90% of its fluoride reserves before the May 7 deadline. However, even with careful planning, they estimate having around 1,500 gallons left by early May, which will require disposal. Based on fluoride pricing, JVWCD could face losses between $5,445 and $14,100 for the remaining supply.
Other districts are in similar situations. Midvale, for example, expects to have fewer than 500 gallons left when the ban takes effect. The disposal costs will vary based on transportation and other logistical factors, but they remain a consideration for affected municipalities.
Awaiting the Governor’s Final Decision
Although the bill has passed through the legislature, it has not yet been signed into law. The governor has publicly stated his intent to approve the measure, but as of now, it remains pending.
For continued updates on this legislative development and its impact on Utah communities, stay tuned to Inside Utah Politics .
- Fluoride and Water Costs: Will Removal Reduce Your Bill? - March 15, 2025
- Aggies Dominate UNLV to Advance in Mountain West Quarterfinals - March 14, 2025
- LDS Church Announces General Conference Dates & Schedule - March 14, 2025
