4 ms·

> Banning it seems like the wrong move to me...states should simply decide to continue adding it or not. Isn't that exactly what's happening here? A state deci

• foenix 2y ago
  Nope, the bill as written prevents local municipalities from making that decision.
  • lolinder 2y ago
    Right. The state made the decision to stop it from being added, which is what OP proposed. Did OP mean that municipalities should simply decide to keep adding or not? If so, how do we decide (from our various armchairs in most cases far away from Utah) what the appropriate level of government for making this call is?
    • throwup238 2y ago
      The state’s Department of Health can issue a guidance explaining the states’ experts’ analysis of the available data and tradeoffs of the decision, and let the municipalities sort it out. I think the bigger complication though is going to be - depending on the state - how water districts are apportioned. I think even many counties (let alone municipalities) will share water infrastructure so it’s not really clear who has the jurisdiction to make that decision other than the state.
      • briandear 2y ago
        It also makes it easier for the consumer: don’t want fluoride, move to Utah. Rather than having to figure out what random water district is doing what.