Latest news with #KirkCullimore
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Will removing fluoridation reduce your water bill? Here's what cities say
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 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 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 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 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 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 '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.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Utah is one step away from becoming 1st state to ban fluoride in water
SALT LAKE CITY (KTVX) – The Utah governor's signature is now all that stands between a state ban on water fluoridation after House Bill 81 cleared its final hurdle in the legislature on Friday. If that bill is signed into law, Utah would also become the first state to institute a full ban on fluoride in public water systems — with no provision allowing cities or communities to decide whether to add the cavity-preventing mineral in their localities. H.B. 81, also known as Fluoride Amendments, would instead allow pharmacists to prescribed fluoride tablets to those needing fluoride as an alternative delivery method. It's sick season. Here's how to protect against norovirus, COVID-19, flu and RSV 'I don't dispute that there can be positive benefits from fluoride, which is why the bill also includes a deregulation of the prescription,' state Republican Rep. Stephanie Gricius, one of the bill's sponsors, wrote in a text message to The Associated Press. 'This isn't anti-fluoride legislation, it is pro-informed consent and individual choice.' Debate in the legislature didn't last long. A brief presentation was given by the bill's sponsor, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Utah County, which was followed by a few comments and concerns from senators. Concerns centered on disturbing local control when it came to adding fluoride to their water systems, as two counties in Utah have voted to add fluoride to their water systems. 'I don't really have a dog in the fight whether we fluoridate our water or not,' Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Davis County, told colleagues during debate. 'But I am not sure I'm comfortable with the legislature telling [local counties] that their local authorities can't do what their residents have voted to do.' Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-Salt Lake County, rose in favor of the bill, saying that there is a difference between fluoride added into water systems versus naturally occurring fluoride, and that adding fluoride to 'a universal good' was wrong for those who didn't choose to have fluoride. He also brought up cost concerns, saying most fluoride is wasted on lawns and bathrooms. The bill ultimately passed Friday in a mixed partisan vote of 18-8-3, with members of both parties voting for and against the measure. If signed by Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, the bill would require all current water systems to cease fluoridation in all public water systems by May 7, 2025. As of 2024, Utah has 484 public water systems, 66 of which add fluoride to their water systems. Those systems serve roughly 1.6 million people across several counties in Utah. Nexstar's KTVX has reached out to Cox's office for a comment. A representative said he was reviewing the bill and that the governor's office would provide more information when available. Water fluoridation is the action of raising naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water systems to aid in oral health of those who drink it. The Centers for Disease Control recommends a level of 0.7 milligrams per liter, which is equivalent to three drops within a 55-gallon barrel of water. Small amounts are beneficial for oral health, experts say, but an excess of fluoride can cause dental fluorosis (a change in the appearance of teeth) in children as well as digestive problems. Fluoridation is also the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay on a large scale, according to Lorna Koci, who chairs the Utah Oral Health Coalition. 'I think the anti-fluoride people, they're latching onto [Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s] opportunity with his beliefs and using that now as a way to kind of get in the door to stop water fluoridation,' Koci said. Kennedy has expressed skepticism about water fluoridation, which is considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. Catholic community in Utah 'united in prayer' for the health of Pope Francis She added that fluoridated public water is often the only form of preventive dental care for some people, and the impacts may be most visible in low-income Utah residents. Fluoride strengthens the teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Bill banning fluoridation one step away from becoming law in Utah
SALT LAKE CITY () — The Governor's signature is now all that stands between a ban on water fluoridation from becoming law in the State of Utah. Fluoridation, or water fluoridation, is the action of raising naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water systems to aid in oral health of those who drink it. The Centers for Disease Control recommends a level of 0.7 milligrams per liter, which is equivalent of three drops within a 55-gallon barrel of water. Though small amounts are beneficial for oral health, an excess of fluoride can cause fluorosis, as well as other digestive related problems. H.B. 81 — or Fluoride Amendments — is a bill that would to public water systems. It would also allow pharmacists to prescribed fluoride tablets to those needing fluoride as an alternative delivery method for those wishing to take fluoride. PREVIOUS: Bill to remove fluoride from Utah's water passes House committee, moves to floor vote The bill has made its way through both chambers of Utah's Legislature. Passing on Friday in a mixed partisan vote of 18-8-3 vote, with members of both parties voting for and against the measure. Debate in the legislature didn't last long. A brief presentation was given by the bill's sponsor, Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Utah County), which was followed by a few comments and concerns from Senators. Concerns centered on disturbing local control when it came to adding fluoride to their water systems, as two counties in Utah have voted to add fluoride to their water systems. 'I don't really have a dog in the fight whether we fluoridate our water or not,' Sen. Todd Weiler (R-Davis County) told colleagues during debate. 'But I am not sure I'm comfortable with the legislature telling [local counties] that their local authorities can't do what their residents have voted to do.' PREVIOUS: Proposed law seeks to remove fluoride from Utah's water supply — What to know Sen. Lincoln Fillmore (R-Salt Lake County) rose in favor of the bill, saying that there is a difference between fluoride added into water systems versus naturally occurring fluoride, and that adding fluoride to 'a universal good' was wrong for those who didn't choose to have fluoride. He also brought up cost concerns, saying most fluoride is wasted on lawns and bathrooms. If signed by the Governor, the bill would require all current water systems to cease fluoridation in all public water systems by May 7, 2025. As of 2024, Utah has 484 public water systems, 66 of which add fluoride to their water systems. Those systems serve roughly 1.6 million people across several counties in Utah. It is currently unclear if the Governor will sign H.B. 81 into law. has reached out to the Governor's office for a comment and has not yet received a response. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary
SALT LAKE CITY () — A slew of proposals making changes to the judicial branch have come forward at the Utah legislature, ranging from the makeup of the state Supreme Court to how Utahns get information on retaining judges and when laws can be paused because of constitutional questions. In the wake of this past summer's ruling on initiatives — and the and D, both rulings that went against the legislature — top legislative leaders like Utah's House Speaker vowed judicial reforms in the wake of those decisions. What has passed — and what's still to come during the 2025 Utah legislative session Senate leaders, however, have denied the proposals are any form of retribution. Rather, they argue the changes are about the best policy — and an effort to speed up judicial processes. They point to cases like Utah's abortion trigger ban and others that are still unresolved after years in the courts. 'It's not about chipping away at the Judiciary,' Senate Majority Leader and lawyer Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper) said when asked about the plethora of proposals. 'It's just that we've got three branches of government, two of which are directly elected by the populace and the third one that is kind of like in a little black box.' While none of these bills have passed the legislature yet, several have begun their legislative journey — although not without some opposition. The Utah State Bar worries several of the proposals undermine separation of powers and could 'inject politics' into the judciary. Here's a breakdown of the key bills to watch: A member of House leadership is exploring to a yet-to-be-determined number. House Majority Leader (R -Saratoga Springs) said the move is an effort to speed up the judicial process. 'Over the past decade, we have seen growing caseloads, delays, and evolving legal complexities in Utah's highest court,' Moss said in a statement. 'The Legislature has the ability to adjust the court's size in response to these growing demands.' , S.B 296 being run by a member of Senate leadership, would allow vacancies in the high court and court of appeals to be filled by appointment of the Governor and confirmation by the Senate — a process used now to confirm each of Utah's judges. Currently, by majority vote to serve for four years. The Supreme Court justices' terms are 10 years. 'Upon any vacancy in the office of chief justice, including expiration of a term of the office of chief justice, or upon a chief justice's death, removal, or resignation, the governor shall appoint a chief justice from among the members of the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,' the bill reads. The bill is sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson (R – Logan). 'What we're trying to do is align the selection process (at the federal level) where the President (of the United States) selects the Supreme Court Justice and then goes through confirmation hearings with the Senate,' Wilson said. 'We think this will be a good way for our constituents, the citizens to be able to weigh in on that process — with the confirmation hearing they'll be able to weigh in.' When asked directly if the proposal was a commentary on the current Supreme Court, he replied, 'No, I think it's good policy.' Senate leaders also argue that if justices have to curry favor with each other to become chief justice the appointment would 'take the politics out of the body.' A new bill yet to be placed on a committee, being run by another member of House leadership, would set up a process for lawmakers to make retention recommendations for judges on the ballot. sets up the 'Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance,' outlines its makeup, and directs the Lt. Governor's office to put 'any retention recommendation from the (committee) for a judge or justice who is listed on the ballot.' Senate leaders have said the goal is to give the public more information about the judges they're retaining, in addition to the current system where a judge gets a rating from JPEC, Utah's . The Utah State Bar opposes the idea arguing that 'judges will be made to answer to the legislature based on any disagreement with a judge's ruling' and that the process will 'inject politics into the current merit-based and nonpartisan judicial evaluation and retention process.' A bill would also raise the threshold for a judge to be retained in Utah. Currently, under Utah law, judges only need to earn 'more yes votes than no votes,' or a simple majority, to win a retention election. The proposal from Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville) in , as written would require 67% approval. The bill has not moved out of rules yet in the Utah House. S.B. 204 would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court rules that a law must be paused or not enacted because it's potentially unconstitutional. 'A defendant has a right to an appeal of an injunctive order granted by a trial court of this state in a civil action if the underlying claim for the injunctive order is that the state law unconstitutional on its face,' the substituted bill reads. Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has told that this proposal aims to address lower court 'overuse' of injunctions on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, while also arguing that it has 'long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality.' After initially opposing the bill, the Utah State Bar says it is now neutral on it. SJR 009 would put a 28-day stipulation on parties challenging potentially unconstitutional laws and seeking an injunction. They would need to do so within 28 days from the time the legislature adjourns. Senator Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper) admitted he wasn't familiar with the proposal but said the idea was to speed up challenges to bills before the law takes effect. 'If there's going to be a challenge, let's do it before we actually effectuate the law,' Cullimore said. The Utah State Bar also opposes this proposal. 'We remain concerned with (this proposal) that dictates the timing to obtain an injunction in a trial court. This resolution is inconsistent with SB 204 by giving only 28 days to enjoin an unconstitutional injunction. We are working with Sen. Brammer to address these issues,' a statement said. Finally, S.B. 203 looks to and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members, something critics say would prevent groups from proving they've been harmed unless the harm had already occurred. Sen. Brammer, the bill's sponsor, said S.B. 203 would protect the integrity of the courts and help them from becoming a 'forum de jour' for out-of-state interests. It would also maintain access to the justice system for individuals with grievances. The Utah State Bar also opposes this bill arguing the bill attempts to change long-standing common law principles of standing. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Bill to Ban Teachers Unions From Collective Bargaining, Meeting in Schools
Utah teachers unions are reeling after a bill that would bar them from bargaining collectively and conducting operations on school property was forwarded to the governor's desk Feb. 6. Lawmakers who favor the measure, HB267, say it was introduced to ensure transparency in public-sector unions and protect taxpayer resources, but educators say it will only make a job that's already full of challenges more difficult. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter While it doesn't prevent employees from joining a union, the bill prohibits public agencies — which employ teachers, firefighters, police officers and county workers, among others — from 'recognizing a labor organization as a bargaining agent' and 'entering into collective bargaining contracts.' The bill's state Senate co-sponsor, Republican Kirk Cullimore, argued during a Feb. 6 legislative session that 'unions are negotiating against what could be seen as the taxpayer sometimes.' At that same meeting, Republican state Sen. John Johnson said collective bargaining can undermine the public interest. 'Public-sector unions, unlike their private counterparts, negotiate with government officials over taxpayer-funded resources,' he said. 'This dynamic can lead to decisions that prioritize union interest over the needs and welfare of the general populace.' Other lawmakers who support HB267 said it ensures that unions operate with transparency and fairness. But some opponents of the bill, including educators and legislators, charge it was created to retaliate against the Utah Education Association, which is challenging the constitutionality of Utah's school voucher program in court. The association is the state's largest teachers union, with 18,000 members. In a Jan. 25 livestreamed discussion, Republican state Sen. Todd Weiler called the measure a 'knee-jerk reaction' to the legislature's frustration with the union. 'Because we can't constitutionally pass a bill that just punishes the UEA, we're including firefighters and other unions that didn't necessarily draw the ire of the legislature,' Weiler said. 'I don't think our best policy directives are achieved if we're trying to be vindictive or reactive to something.' Like most of Utah's teachers unions, Canyons Education Association in Salt Lake County doesn't engage in collective bargaining. But President Krista Pippin said the chapter regularly negotiates with the district for improved policies and working conditions. 'The school board administration didn't support [the bill]. The superintendents association did not support it, because they all know the importance of advocacy work that is so essential to the profession,' Pippin said. Lawmakers who support HB267 have said unions could still advocate for their interests under the bill, but opposing senators and Utah's largest teachers union disagree. State Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla said the measure will have a lot of unintended consequences. 'Our first responders, our teachers, are doing probably the most difficult jobs that we have right now,' Escamilla said. 'Their ability to feel protected and have representation in conversations … they are not going to be able to do it individually with their management. That is just impossible.' The Utah Education Association said on its website that HB267 will weaken advocacy because it cuts off access to schools, making it harder for unions to do their work. The bill would bar unions from using public property for free. Members would have to pay to use their school space or rent another public location for union activity. Jenny Graviet, president of Weber Education Association, said she would no longer be able to visit schools during lunch to collect teacher opinions or meet with district administrators to discuss union priorities. 'I do a lot in the evening, but when I talk to members, then I have to catch them during their lunchtime. But I'm still using the building,' Graviet said. 'Which means I'm not going to be listening to voices.' Under the bill, collective bargaining contracts that are in place by May would remain in force until they expire. The union in Weber, located north of Salt Lake City, is one of the few in Utah that does engage in collective bargaining to secure teacher contracts. Now, the chapter will have to act quickly to finalize a multi-year contract with the district and get it ratified by the school board by the May deadline. 'We're going to have to just cut off the ideas that we were hoping to do,' Graviet said. 'For example, special education teachers had reached out to me, begging for more time because they've got to get caught up on their caseloads.' Graviet said she's already losing members because educators are getting misinformation about the bill, thinking it will outlaw teachers unions. 'If we have reduced membership, we cannot pay for things … in the end, you get a very weakened union,' she said. 'When you have weakened locals, you have a weakened state who can't work on legislation, who can't advocate on our behalf. It kind of makes me sad.'
