South Dakota cities could stop fluoridating drinking water under bill passed by committee
A bill that would make fluoridation of drinking water optional for South Dakota cities is headed to the Senate chamber.
Cities add fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay and strengthen teeth, in South Dakota and throughout the United States. Research shows that community water fluoridation reduces cavities by around 25%, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls water fluoridation one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.
Senate Bill 133, introduced by Aberdeen Republican Sen. Carl Perry, would allow municipalities controlling a public water supply or a person controlling a private water supply to determine the amount of fluoride in their drinking water. Currently, the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources regulates fluoride levels and testing methods
The bill would cap water fluoridation at 4 milligrams per liter, the limit already imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. South Dakota cities would not be required to include any fluoride in the municipal drinking water, so some could discontinue the practice.
Skeptics of fluoridation benefits have raised concerns about excessive fluoride consumption for years. President Donald Trump tapped outspoken water fluoridation opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Senate has yet to confirm his nomination.
Perry told lawmakers that the federal government could change fluoridation policy under Kennedy's influence, so South Dakota 'should be ahead of that.'
Several dental and medical organizations opposed the bill, saying it would lead to more health problems in the state. South Dakota Municipal League, South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems, South Dakota Department of Health, and South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources also opposed the bill.
Ensuring access to safe and reliable drinking water is the 'primary' public health initiative for the state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, said Mark Mayer, water director for the department.
'We feel that community water system fluoridation is one of the safest, most beneficial and cost effective ways to prevent tooth decay,' Mayer said.
The legislation passed out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee 6-1 'without recommendation' after an attempt to defeat the bill failed. That means that a majority of senators must agree to place it on the calendar before it's debated, said Brookings Republican Sen. Tim Reed, otherwise the bill dies.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
