Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 96|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 96
Author: Alpert (D), et al
Amended: 8/24/04
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Public water systems: fluoridation
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : Assembly amendments gut the bill. Previously
the bill appropriated $2,445,095.90 from various funds to
pay 468 claims against 37 state agencies.
This bill now strengthens the requirement that public water
systems (PWS) with at least 10,000 service connections must
meet for the fluoridation of public water.
ANALYSIS : This bill:
1. Makes findings and declarations related to the
protection and maintenance of dental health through the
fluoridation of drinking water and the intent of the
Legislature to preempt initiatives that would prohibit
or restrict the fluoridation of drinking water and
decrease the burden of Medi-Cal and Denti-Cal on the
state's limited funds.
CONTINUED
SB 96
Page
2
2. Clarifies that a PWS with at least 10,000 service
connections and natural level of fluorides that is less
than the minimum established by regulations is required
to be fluoridated.
3. Requires a PWS with at least 10,000 service connections
to provide the Department of Health Services (DHS) with
an estimate of the total capital costs to install
fluoridation treatment at ten-year intervals, unless one
has been installed.
4. Specifies that the purpose of the schedule required for
the fluoridation of PWSs and established under
regulations is not to mandate the order in which PWSs
receiving funding from private sources must fluoridate
their water. Permits available funds to be offered to
any system on the schedule.
5. Requires estimates of the total capital and associated
costs related to fluoridation treatments, as specified,
provided by a PWS to DHS to be reasonable, as determined
by DHS, and prohibits intangible or speculative costs.
Requires a registered civil engineer recognized or
employed by DHS who is familiar with the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of fluoridation
systems to determine whether costs are reasonable.
6. Defines "cost" as only those costs that require an
actual expenditure of funds or resources, and do not
include costs that are intangible or speculative,
including, but not limited to, opportunity or
indemnification costs.
7. Exempts a PWS with multiple water sources, when funding
is not received to fluoridate all sources, from
maintaining required fluoride levels in areas receiving
any non-fluoridated water until funding is received to
fluoridate the entire water system and the system is
installed and operational.
8. Exempts a PWS from being required to fluoridate if:
A. The PWS has been offered, pursuant to a binding
contractual offer, the capital and associated funds
SB 96
Page
3
necessary for fluoridation, as specified, and has
completed the installation of a fluoridation system,
however, in any given fiscal year funding is not
available to the PWS sufficient to pay the noncapital
operation and maintenance costs, as specified, from
any outside source, as specified. Renders a PWS
unqualified for an exemption for a particular year if
a binding contractual offer to provide funds for
twelve months, without regard to fiscal year, of
noncapital operation and maintenance costs is
received.
B. Funding provided by an outside source for capital
and associated costs is depleted prior to completion
of the installation of a fluoridation system, and
funds sufficient to complete the installation have not
been offered pursuant to a binding contractual offer
to the PWS system by an outside source. Requires, in
the event of a disagreement between a PWS and an
outside funding source about the reasonableness of
additional capital and associated costs, a registered
civil engineer recognized or employed by DHS who is
familiar with the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of fluoridation systems to determine
whether the costs are reasonable.
10.Requires a PWS to fluoridate if funds are offered for
that purpose.
According to the author's office, San Diego is the largest
city in the nation without community water fluoridation.
In June 2003, the City Attorney advised the City Council
that the pending contract to fluoridate could not be signed
by the City because of language in the original ordinance,
which, according to his interpretation, precludes the City
from spending any money on any future legal issues stemming
from fluoridation. The City Attorney stated that the City
needs to be indemnified to compensate for possible losses
due to potential lawsuits. According to the California
Dental Association Foundation and the San Diego
Fluoridation Coalition, the San Diego City Attorney is
falling back on the original city ordinance to halt the
progress of fluoridating the water supply. This bill is a
clean-up measure that closes a number of loopholes that
SB 96
Page
4
localities have used to avoid fluoridating their water.
AB 733 (Speier), Chapter 660, Statutes of 1995, required
DHS to adopt regulations to require the fluoridation of all
large PWSs. A PWS scheduled to fluoridate is not required
to comply until funds sufficient to pay capital and
associated costs for the system have become available from
any source other than ratepayers, shareholders, local
taxpayers, or bondholders of the public water system. In
1998, the California Endowment awarded the California
Dental Association Foundation $15 million to implement the
provisions of AB 733. Since then, many cities have
fluoridated or begun the process while there have also been
several legal and initiative efforts to curtail
fluoridation.
The current debate around whether or not fluoride should be
added to drinking water centers on a few major issues,
including the effectiveness of fluoridation of water on
dental health and adverse health effects resulting from
fluoridation. Supporters of fluoridation generally assert
that it is an issue of public health importance, and cite
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
recognition that fluoridation is "one of ten great public
health achievements of the twentieth century." They also
contend that the benefits of fluoridation are well
documented and have been shown to improve the oral health
of the community and to decrease the overall cost of dental
treatment. Opponents of fluoridation generally assert that
fluoride added to water supplies is publicized to save
money and prevent tooth decay. However, they believe that
data supporting these claims is absent and that the dental
health of residents of fluoridation communities are often
times worse than in non-fluoridated communities. A review
of available literature and data published in the British
Medical Journal in 2000 found that water fluoridation was
associated with an increased proportion of children without
cavities and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by
decay. Additionally, there was no clear evidence of other
potential adverse effects from fluoridation. One caveat
the authors of the study made, however, was that the
quality of studies reviewed was "low to moderate."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
SB 96
Page
5
Local: No
Unknown
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/04)
California Dental Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/04)
Sierra Club
California Citizens for Health Freedom
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
CP:nl 8/27/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
