Watsonville and Judge Roll Over for Fluoridation
Jeff Green
(Citizens for Safe Drinking Water)
July 7, 2004

And who said we can't all get along?

Obviously not the City of Watsonville, California Department of
Health Services, California Dental Association and its Foundation
that is delivering the money for fluoridation, and of course Judge
Robert Atack of Santa Cruz County Superior Court.

It took exactly ten minutes for them all to come to the conclusion
upon which they could all agree: fluoridate Watsonville.

What was the Judge's reasoning? No one will know, as at least two
minutes were taken to explain that the Judge did not have to provide
a Statement of Decision for trials that take less than six hours.

How could it really take only ten minutes?

One, set the stage by the Department of Health Services claiming that
they have chosen the City of Watsonville as their test case to show
that California Charter Cities with their own Constitutions must
fluoridate.

Two, further set the stage by the City Council of Watsonville, who
feverishly supported fluoridation, directing their City Attorney to
sue the California Department of Health Services for forcing them to
fluoridate (did anyone expect collusion here?).

Three, allow the California Dental Association and the California
Dental Association Foundation to become a party to the case based on
their heavy investment in lobbying for fluoridation.

Four, have a non-judge Commissioner issue a ruling, in favor of the
Dental Association and Department of Health Services' desire to
exclude the citizens who enacted a water quality initiative from the
trial, opening that citizens would have nothing to offer that the
City Attorney couldn't represent, despite the fact that citizens had
to successfully sue the City Attorney for attempting to misrepresent
Measure S on the ballot question put before the voters, and the City
Council for whom the City Attorney works wants to be forced to
fluoridate.

Five, have the attorneys for the parties who were all seeking the
same result state before the Court that this would not be a trial of
disputed facts.

Six, have all of the parties agree to misrepresentation of facts,
including the intent and specifics of the enacted municipal
ordinance, in the same manner the City Attorney attempted to
represent to the voters on their initiative.

Seven, have Judge Robert Atack conveniently not remember, or at least
resist being compelled to act on the fact, that he was the Judge that
rewrote the ballot question to correct the City Attorney's same
misrepresentations of the measure enacted.

And eight, ignore all facts and laws that are not convenient to the
desired result.

Some observers have commented, "Why did it even take that long?"

There was the misdirection by the Judge who began by asking the
parties if they had any additional evidence and the chuckles that
ensued after the Judge reminded himself that they had all been
totally briefed and that there would be no more evidence.

The Judge did have to ask the question of whether there were any
additional arguments not contained in their briefs, and with no
additions then it was time.

Rubber stamp one, Measure S is in conflict with State law.

Rubber stamp two, health affairs are a matter of statewide concern.

Rubber stamp three, water fluoridation law appears to be reasonably
related to health concerns.

Rubber stamp four, Measure S is preempted by state law.

Rubber stamp five, the City's claims that state law conditions are
not met do not apply to the exemptions set forth for not fluoridating.

Rubber stamp six, there was an offer of funding that removed the
City's exemption from fluoridating.

These are not capsulations of what the Judge ruled. Other than some
pronouns, that was all that was offered on each subject.

However, the Judge did not rubber stamp the contention that the
initiative-enacted ordinance was invalid; and when pressed by the
Defendant's attorneys to order that initiative enacted laws like this
one should not be allowed even if funding wasn't provided as required
by law, the City Attorney did point out that this was not an
appellate court and the Judge could not rule for other cities. A
professional moment for them all.

As many observers who are cynical of the Court system ever delivering
a just verdict on a controversial issue have noted, "What did you
expect?"

Certainly there was no reason to have to follow law, all of the
parties were seeking this result and none of the parties will ever
appeal, and no other parties can appeal.

However, sidestepping the municipal ordinance, the Judge had to
ignore that the condition for enforcement of state law to fluoridate
requires that sufficient funding be provided by sources other than
ratepayers and taxpayers. His ruling obliterates that condition.

Did the City Attorney Alan Smith offer argument after a request from
Judge Atack even to protect his own City's budget and taxpayers? Not
one peep.

What is this ruling's impact?

This sweetheart deal will be excellent public relations and
additional political cover for the proponents who, because the Judge
is not required to establish his reasoning, will probably never have
to confront the conflicting statements made by the Department of
Health Services made in the Macy v. City of Escondido and CA
Department of Health Services where they claim that they have no
authority to select the substances used by water districts.

What action will ensue?

Proponents of fluoridation have already spread the word that the
municipal ordinances won't hold up, and we expect that letters to
comply with fluoridation orders will fly out to all that are
protective of their water, so on the surface this will create
hesitation for the uninformed.

However, this lawsuit sets absolutely no legal precedence for any
other parties and only shows what kind of sweetheart deals can be
made when you exclude the parties you are offending.

As far as Watsonville is concerned, the ruling does not apply to any
other citizens or citizens group that wants to take action against
the City or Department of Health Services. Action will be taken.

Meanwhile, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water groups in other
communities are already preparing for defending their ordinances as
expected when this sham lawsuit was filed.