San Diego Violates Fluoridation Law, Legal Action Taken

San Diego’s city council violated State and City laws by adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into the water, according to a Writ of Mandamus filed by attorney Bernard King on August 9, 2016 which asks the court to require the City to obey fluoridation laws.

San Diegans repeatedly voted against fluoridation. San Diego Law (Section 67.0101) prohibits fluoridation.

However, a 1995 State law overrides the local law. Created and stealthily lobbied for by organized dentistry, the State law requires fluoridation in cities with 10,000 hookups only IF outside money is available (e.g. a source other than ratepayers or local taxpayers).

That outside money was used up in 2013. Now fluoridation costs ratepayers $500,000 yearly which clearly violates the State law. San Diego must revert back to its own voter-directed law prohibiting fluoridation.

Freedom-of-Information obtained documents reveal the dodgy, and maybe illegal, fluoridation funding e-mail discussions among city officials

Shortly before private funding was due to run out, the Public Utilities Department wrote that the decision to continue fluoridation “will be made by the Mayor requiring City Council approval.”

On March 20, 2013, the Public Utilities Director asked the Interim Chief Operating Officer for a “quick decision” on whether the City would continue to fluoridate “with the use of rate payer funds.”

On September 30, 2013, Public Utilities Deputy Director wrote that “Roger [Public Utilities Director] provided direction to continue fluoridation with Department funds after the grant funding was exhausted (~April 2013). He consulted with both the Mayor’s office and City Attorney’s Office prior to making that decision.”

Thus, without bringing the issue to the City Council or the public, the Public Utilities Director and the Mayor decided to continue to fluoridate at an estimated cost of $500,000 per year at ratepayers’ expense – in violation of State law.

Moreover, City staff removed the fluoridation discussion from the Independent Rates Oversight Committee [IROC]’s Agenda with direction to “Just send an email to the committee members indicating that fluoridation will continue at all three plants and is the budgeted in our Water O & M [Operations & Maintenance] account. Don’t say Roger directed it.”

It’s no surprise that city officials fought hard to keep these emails secret.

Petitioner Dr. David Kennedy said, “I submitted an open records request September 2013. They did everything possible to avoid complying with my request. Even after a judge ruled in our favor in November 2013, the City refused to release these emails. Only after I hired a referee were the documents released. The City paid me back my $4700 that I paid for the referee and paid attorney Bernard King $75,000, about half his normal fee.”

Attorney Bernard King, in a November 17, 2015 letter to the San Diego City Council (which was ignored), wrote: “Section 67.0101 prohibits fluoridation. The City should respect the will of the voters. But even if the City could ignore the will of the voters, it should at least present its choice to the City Council at a public meeting, rather than make the decision quietly out of the public’s view. Lastly, the City should give the ratepayers a Prop. 218 (“Right to Vote on Taxes Act”) notice before diverting ratepayers’ money toward an unnecessary $500,000 annual expenditure.”