CLEARFIELD — For several months, the Clearfield City Council has been debating removing fluoride from its drinking water treatment plan.
At its recent meeting, members heard from community representatives who asked members to reject the idea.
Authority Engineer Jim Balliet of Gwin, Dobson & Foreman Inc., Altoona, asked members earlier this year to consider stopping adding the chemical compound as part of the drinking water treatment process.
Balliet said that obtaining a reliable supply of fluoride that is readily available is becoming increasingly difficult and increasingly expensive. He also said the substance is too corrosive to the treatment plant’s components, creating additional costs for the authority.
The authority will have to make a final decision in the coming months on whether to continue adding fluoride to drinking water, but they wanted to hear public comment. A decision on whether the components needed to add fluoride will be required by the end of the year as design work is underway to upgrade a water filtration system at the Montgomery treatment plant.
Hygienist Shirley Morgan brought documentation and a letter from a dentist in Curwensville asking for treatment to continue.
“I would like to empower and educate you so that you can make an informed decision for the children of the community. Fluoride treatment will help improve their overall health by improving dental health,” Morgan said.
He said the Clearfield community has a higher poverty rate than the state average, making it unlikely that many children will have consistent dental care. Therefore, they must rely on fluoride in their drinking water to help improve their dental health.
Nicole Payonak, policy and advocacy coordinator for the Pennsylvania Oral Health Coalition, also asked the authority to continue treating drinking water with fluoride not only to help local children, but older residents as well.
“We recognize that children benefit, but it’s just as important for older adults,” he explained.
President Russell Triponey said authority members would revisit the issue at the September meeting, but wanted to get input from all sides before members made a decision on the matter.
“We can discuss both sides next month,” he said. The authority received a number of letters from those who supported continuing to add fluoride to drinking water, including the state Department of Health, CenClear and local dental professionals, he noted.
Balliet said he will proceed with adding the components to the plant upgrade needed for the fluoride treatment.
“It’s easier to put them in now and later decide not to use them, than to wait later and decide to add them. The authority would like to make a decision before the project is advertised for tender. I would say you have about six months before a final decision is made, but members will really have to decide soon,” he said.
Balliet said if authority members decide not to treat drinking water with fluoride, there will be a process to amend the authority’s drinking water permit.
