Will removing fluoridation reduce your water bill? Here's what cities say

Yahoo

15-03-2025

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Utah's proposed ban on fluoridation has begun to send ripples throughout Utah as cities, towns, and water districts are anticipating the governor's signature on the proposed measure.
— or Fluoride Amendments — was passed by the state legislature and sent to the governor in what will be the nation's first ban on water fluoridation. During an interview with Inside Utah Politics, the governor indicated to ABC4.com that he intends to sign the measure into law.
While the ban was being discussed in the legislature, lawmakers spoke about the savings residents and cities will see once fluoridation stops. Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Utah County), the bill's Senate sponsor, told law makers during a debate on Feb. 20 that one of the reasons for the bill was to '[reduce] unnecessary costs' for people.
PREVIOUS: Bill banning fluoridation one step away from becoming law in Utah
However, how much money will residents actually save on their water bills if fluoridation is banned? The answer — not that much. However, the question is a little more complicated than a water bill. Fluoridation has effects on city budgets as well and its elimination can help save money on those budgets. We spoke to several water districts and cities, and this is what they told us.
When it comes to your monthly water bill, fluoridation isn't a major contributor to your bottom line. Cities like Riverton, South Jordan, and West Jordan import their water from other sources and only maintain the infrastructure that gets the water to your faucet. In situations like this, cities don't need to fluoridate and just need to test the water to see if it's up to the recommended 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Of the eight towns and water districts ABC4.com was able to reach in Salt Lake County, six said that costs wouldn't change. Water Pros INC, who supply a majority of the water in Draper, said that residents could see 'less than 90 cents per month' in savings as a result of the ban.
Sandy City told ABC4.com that residents might see an initial increase in their bills as a result of removing their water fluoridation systems. This is due to the leftover fluoride they will have to dispose of, along with removing the infrastructure used to fluoridate the water. However, Sandy City also said that residents would see savings in the long term after these systems were removed — which brings us to the other side of the coin.
Cities and water districts will see larger savings on account of the ban than residents will, however, there will be initial costs before those savings will be realized.
Sandy City told ABC4.com that they do not know how much it will cost the city to remove their current fluoridation infrastructure, and to dispose of the fluoride they currently have on hand. According to the city, it costs $53,600 to add fluoride into the city's water supply. Of that amount, $21,840 goes to an employee to monitor the systems, $28,200 to maintain it, and $3,600 for the computer systems that add fluoride into the water.
With the fluoridation ban, the city will no longer have to pay that amount, along with no longer needing to run tests to make sure the levels are up to standard. This would be consistent for any city or district that fluoridates their water. They will also no longer have to purchase the fluoride, which begs another question: Where will the fluoride that cities and districts have on hand go?
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, a water district that supplies the water to several cities in Salt Lake County, shared with ABC4.com that it hopes to use up its supply before the May 7 deadline goes into effect.
'Jordan Valley Water anticipates it will use about 90% of its remaining fluoride supply by the time the law takes effect in early May,' a spokesperson for JVWCD said in a statement. 'I don't have the exact costs for the disposal of the remaining fluoride, but it will be minimal compared to our operating budget.'
Fluoride stock left on hand cannot be resold or given off. According to Teresa Gray, resell isn't viable when dealing with remaining fluoride, saying that it's 'not really a viable option.''We have them at our wells throughout our distribution system,' Grey told ABC4.com. 'And so, part of that cost that we need to look into is what is the transportation cost going to be?'
According to JVWCD, they currently have 7,500-10,000 gallons of fluoride on hand, and they hope to have 1,500 gallons by May 1st. Before the ban, the district would typically order between 7-10 days before they needed to use the fluoride, however that varies depending on the time of year.
The cost of fluoride varies. According to JVWCD, their typical purchase ranges from $3.63 to $9.40 per gallon. So, if 1,500 gallons of fluoride remained by the May 7 deadline, the district could face a loss between $5,445 to $14,100. This cost can vary for each township or district depending on supply on hand and how much is used by the deadline. Midvale, for example, expects to have less than 500 gallons on hand by the May 7 deadline.
At the time of this writing, the governor has not signed H.B. 81 into law. For further updates, make sure to visit Inside Utah Politics!
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.