Water

The Davis Enterprise on Sunday, in arguing that the addition of fluoride “to our water supply would benefit us all,” cited the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recognizing “community water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” The paper concluded, “It’s time for Davis residents to reap the benefits of fluoride in their water supply.”

The editors of the local paper noted that there has been “considerable debate this summer and early fall about whether fluoride is safe, effective and worth the cost of adding it to Davis’ well water and the water that will flow from the new Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project. We believe it is.”

by Tia Will

Over the past few months, much has been discussed in public, before the WAC, in letters to the editor of the Enterprise and in this blog about the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Some of the comments pertain to the effectiveness of fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay, some to the safety, some to the costs, some to whether or not this is an appropriate public health measure at all.

All of these are valid concerns which should and have been addressed at length. We are approaching time for the City Council to make a decision. This is not a “no brainer” as some from each side of the issue have suggested. What I think is true of both proponents and opponents is that everyone who cares enough to educate themselves and comment on this issue has the best interest of the community in mind. What we have are differences of opinion about what is the “best interest” of our community.

After months of debate, the day of reckoning has arrived on the issue of fluoridation – but whatever council does, we will have little insight from the city staff report, which has simply provided the city council with two competing resolutions.  One of the resolutions would direct staff to pursue fluoridation of the city of Davis drinking water, while the other would declare that the city does not intend to fluoridate the city of Davis drinking water.

A few weeks ago, city staff tried to punt the issue down the road to avoid what they can only see as a collision course between opponents and proponents.  However, there was one point that both sides agreed on – the decision needed to be made sooner rather than later.

Last December, I ran a piece called “The Other Davis,” which referred to a subsection of people who live in Davis and whom we may not see every day at our community meetings.  These are not the affluent members of our community, but they are present in our community nonetheless, and may be a growing subsection.

This was driven home to me this week as I dropped my nephew off at his new school at Pioneer which, by all appearances, looks like a typical Davis mix, and then headed over to Montgomery where my daughter is going to preschool through Head Start – and the contrast was amazing.

It had become one of the more divisive issues in the community, but despite that or perhaps because of that, there was one thing both sides agreed on Tuesday night – the council needed to go forward with the proposal to fluoridate the city’s water supply at the October 1, 2013, Davis City Council meeting.

City staff, perhaps sensing the need to cool down discussions, had recommended delaying the item until after the completion of the water project.

The issue of the surface water projects and the cost to the community has long been a point of contention.  The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency put together a one-page information sheet on the Project Cost Estimate and the history on how the costs have been reduced.

This is somewhat incomplete as the current costs do not reflect any cost increases caused by the increase in the cost of municipal bonds as the result of the lawsuit and possible initiative that could undo the Prop 218 approved water rates.

It may be tempting to want to put off the decision on whether or not to fluoridate the city’s water supply until the decision absolutely has to be made.  After all, it figures to be a bitterly divisive and emotional issue.  With so many more pressing issues on the table from the city’s perspective, an ugly fight on fluoridation is the last thing they want.

The problem is that as long as the issue of fluoridation hangs over the water project, the water project itself – facing lawsuits and a possible initiative – might be in trouble.

It has become one of the more contentious issues in the city of Davis with a contingent of supporters in the heatlh community solidly behind the idea of adding fluoride to the city’s water supply, while another group of activists is strongly against the proposal, calling the use of fluoride in the water supply inefficient, ineffective and quite possibly hazardous to other aspects of one’s health.

An item on the city’s agenda this week asks for the council to determine not whether to add fluoride to the water supply but rather the timing of when that decision should be determined.

by Lauren Ayers

It’s true that Yolo County kids suffer too much dental decay.  Many agree that local government has a role to play in bringing that down.  However, the Davis plan will not only fail in lowering dental decay but will harm children, adults, and the environment.

Instead of slapping fluorosilicic acid on the problem like a bandaid, we should get to the source of the problem – the tidal wave of sugar that inundates children every day.  UCSF pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, MD, explains in “The Bitter Truth” — three million hits on YouTube!

On August 26, Attorney Michael Harrington filed a motion arguing that “it is appropriate, in resolving the issues involving this Proposition 218 challenge to the City’s actions and omissions, that extra record evidence be used (and) that plaintiffs have an opportunity to provide Expert Reports, both to support its position and to refute the City’s position.”

He argues, “The City is attempting to hamstring the Plaintiffs by limiting the evidence which can be used to challenge the City.”  He argues that the city has “seemingly deliberately” left out a critical email report by Matt Williams, submitted to the city in January.  He adds, “The City even objects to having Plaintiffs present Expert Reports for the Court’s situation.”

In the last several weeks, we have laid out some reasons we think it is unlikely the Davis City Council will ultimately go forward with fluoridation and why we believe any such effort will result in an effort to put the matter on the ballot and ultimately lead to the defeat of the proposal –  if not the entire water project.

In July, Councilmember Brett Lee put forward a compromise on fluoridation, while Dan Wolk got behind it completely.  Last week, Barbara West put forward her own alternative, arguing that “it would benefit the dental health of low-income children in Yolo County if the money proposed to be spent on water fluoridation was instead spent on an outreach/home visiting program.”

As the city of Davis considers whether or not to add fluoride to its water, the Vanguard is going to have a few articles that highlight arguments for and against fluoridation.  We have not taken an official position on fluoridation but have received some material on it and wanted to post some of that to promote further community-based discussion.

The following is a letter from Ambassador Andrew Young, a former ambassador to the U.N., dated March 29, 2011 to the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives.

Staff is recommending the city council deny the request of Rancho Yolo to create a special water rate class, following discussions during and after the election in which leadership of the mobile home park proposed to have their water rates increase by the same percentages as single-family residential rates.

The controversy began publicly in February, when Rancho Yolo President Jerry Hallee wrote, upon seeing the city’s proposed water rates, “We were shocked, then angry, because the consequence of applying the MFR to Rancho Yolo makes the average Rancho Yolo household – senior, fixed-income, single-resident home – pay hugely more than the SFR household.”

I have yet to take a position on the fluoridation issue, and for good reason.  I do not believe that either side has adequately addressed what are my key concerns.  I do not have the fear of fluoridated water, because I grew up for 23 years in a location that had fluoridated water and I do not see the fearful side effects that many seem to believe accompany fluoridated water.

On the other hand, as someone trained in quantitative methodology, the correlation between fluoridated water and reduction in tooth decay is not there.  Proponents of fluoridation can show the longitudinal decline in tooth decay over time, but when you analyze areas with fluoridated water and areas without fluoridated water, the trendlines mirror each other, which would seem to rule out the impact of fluoridated water and point toward a third variable.

This weekend the Davis Enterprise came out against the water rate initiative put forward by Michael Harrington, Pam Nieberg and Ernie Head.

“Let the court decide whether rates are proportional under the law,” they argue.  “The people have spoken. Now, it’s time to move on.”

It is easy to view everything through the lens of electoral politics, especially when an announced candidate for the  State Assembly makes a very public statement on a rather controversial issue.  On Sunday, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk became the first Davis City Councilmember to public endorse the idea of fluoridated water.

His campaign insists he did so because it was the right thing to do, but at the same time, he has waded into turbulent waters of an issue that has divided the Davis community for over 50 years.  As our analysis suggested on Sunday, we believe there is a good possibility that fluoridation – if placed on the ballot – would fail in an up or down vote.

In an op-ed in the local paper, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk joins with the executive director of First 5 Yolo, Julie Gallelo, and former Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel to argue, “The partnership between Davis and Woodland on our surface water project provides both communities the most cost-effective solution to do what we should have done years ago: fluoridate our water.”

But despite the fact that “across the nation, more than 70 percent of people utilize community fluoridation,” the topic has proven to be highly controversial, not just this year, but for the last fifty years in the city of Davis.

My sense is that people in City Hall and some of the posters on this site are underestimating the severity of the threat posed by the litigation, and now the initiative, that Michael Harrington has filed with the help of Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg.

This is going to be the first of a two-part commentary that lays out, in the best way I can, the potential danger here.  For its part, the city seems to believe that the litigation will not stop the water project, and that it will only make it far more expensive.  Unfortunately, we still have not seen the figures but the city’s current estimate of the impact on the bond ratings is about $50 to $60 million.

Yolo County Judge Dan Maguire dealt at least a procedural blow to the city’s efforts to build its surface water project when he denied the city’s motion formally on Wednesday and implemented his tentative ruling.  The city had attempted to bifurcate the portion of the lawsuit filed by the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services (YRAPUS) that dealt with the city’s water rates.

Judge Maguire ruled that the city “fails to show that bifurcation, as proposed, would promote judicial economy or convenience.”  Furthermore, he ruled that the city, “was aware of the current lawsuit when it entered into the joint powers agreement with the City of Woodland on February 26, 2013.”

Attorneys for the city are seeking to separate some of the questions facing them in the lawsuit filed by the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services (YRAPUS) and John Munn.  The city is arguing that the fourth, sixth and seven causes of actions should be bifurcated from the remaining claims, for release with a separate hearing date on the merits of those causes of actions.

Harriet Steiner, the city attorney, argues in the brief that “bifurcation of this action will result in a more efficient resolution of this litigation, preserve judicial resources, and minimize undue prejudice to the City.”