Editor:
Placing fluoride into a community water system is a very controversial subject.
This is a topic that should be thoroughly discussed by the impacted citizens, regardless of one’s beliefs about the topic. The recent decision by the City Council to repeal the fluoride ordinance put in place over 60 years ago by the citizens of Sweet Home is deeply concerning.
This change affects the health of all 10,000 city residents in our community. The first public
notice of the repeal appeared on the City Council Agenda of June 24, 2025. Following this
Council Meeting, the New Era included an article about this subject in their July 2 edition of
their newspaper. To my knowledge, no meaningful effort was made to solicit public input or
encourage open dialogue.
For a policy with such far-reaching health implications, I believe the pros and cons should have been discussed and the research shared with our community.
While a public comment period technically existed, very few members of the public even knew removal of the fluoride from Sweet Home’s water system was a topic being considered.
Normally, a change of a city ordinance has a minimum of two public hearings, one when the
change is placed on an agenda and the second at the council’s following meeting. This did not happen. Both the first and second readings were conducted at the June 24, 2025 meeting.
The second reading was by Title only. No public comments were heard. The third reading and the vote on this topic was conducted at the next council meeting on July 8, 2025. The public was given a chance to speak at this meeting. Those wishing to speak were given three minutes to talk. No discussion was permitted.
One person spoke in favor of removing the fluoride and three spoke in favor of keeping the fluoride.
This fluoride issue was voted in by the citizens of Sweet Home in 1964 and discussed again in public forums in 2014. No legitimate forum for debate this time.
This is especially concerning given the flood of misinformation and fear-based claims circulating about fluoride. In my opinion, a thoughtful, city forum for discussion should have preceded any vote.
A few council members spoke of representing their constituents, yet failed to seek input from the wider community or put the issue to a public vote. A policy originally approved by the people was quietly overturned by five council members voting for removal and two voting against.
Again, I heard no scientific justification provided nor a single study cited to support this
repeal.
Equally concerning is the fact that the City Health Committee was neither consulted nor
informed. A joint meeting between the Health Committee and the councilors was scheduled to be held an hour before the June 24 th meeting but it was canceled.
The Health Committee had its regular meeting the next day, June 25. Not a single mention of the fluoride removal was made by city staff or any councilor.
To my knowledge, not a single local, county, nor state health expert was brought into the conversation. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, shouldn’t
there have been an opportunity for open, unbiased discussion taken place before a final
decision was made?
I did appreciate that Councilor Sanchez suggested at the July 8 meeting that staff investigate the possibility of the city providing some form of fluoride supplement alternatives, particularly for children, the elderly, and those without regular dental care. However, no direction was given to the staff to look into this idea.
I am not advocating for fluorinating the city’s water system. I am advocating for the public to
have an open, non-biased discussion that shows both sides of this issue and then letting the public vote on this issue. I suggest that our Sweet Home citizens speak with their own dentist or healthcare provider about this topic.
Get the real facts about fluorinated water and make up your own mind. If you want a voice in this issue, please notify our city councilors.
Decisions can be reversed if that is the will of the people!
Thank you,
Larry Horton
Concerned Citizen
Sweet Home