KWCH 12 Eyewitness News
August 22nd, 2012
November 6th, Wichita voters will decide whether to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water supply.
Wichita City Council members opted to put the issue to a public vote instead of making the decision. A group petitioned the city to add fluoride to the water. City council members said it’s an issue that impacts every citizen, so voters should decide.
The city estimates it will cost more than $2.3 million in initial construction costs. That would be to add the necessary equipment at the water treatment plant.
It would then cost the city about $600,000 a year to operate the system. It’s still not known how the city would pay for the changes.
When you cast your ballot, below is the question you will be asked.
SHALL SECTION 17.12.340 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WICHITA BE ADOPTED WHICH PROVIDES:
- The City of Wichita’s Director of Public Works & Utilities is authorized and directed to fluoridate the City of Wichita’s public drinking water supply to the optimal levels beneficial to reduce tooth decay and promote good oral health as recommended by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and is thereafter responsible for the fluoridation of that public drinking watersupply.
- Upon the direction of the Director of Public Works & Utilities, the Wichita Water Department is authorized and directed to install, operate, and maintain the equipment necessary to introduce fluoride compound sufficient to raise the fluoride concentration in the public drinking water supply to the optimal levels as set forth in the previous paragraph.
YES ____ NO ____
Editor’s Note: Fluoride Free Kansas has learned that the language of the above ballot was drafted in advance by fluoride proponents – not city staff members. Although the least desired eventuality for the proponents has come to pass – it was the ‘privilege’ of the proponents to have their fallback language for the perspective ballot prepared for the legal process, in advance. Inherently biased with their own deceptive promotion, when a more innocuous/neutral wording of such ballot would be most appropriate.
Nonetheless, to answer a question posed by many since this text was first published – we’ve inquired of the city’s election office and have learned that an effective challenge to it would not be viable, nor worthy of pursuing in the time allotted, unfortunately – but has been strongly considered. Efforts must now place emphasis on education, spreading the word, and getting out to vote – NO TO FLUORIDE.