Veto "Gut & Amend" (SB 96) Jeff Green
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
Sept 27, 2004
Regardless of their unsupportable opinion
about fluoridation, Mayors and council members that lobby for
the State to trample the decisions by voters are expressing
more than arrogance -- they are expressing their disdain for
the opinions and rights of the citizens. They do not deserve
our trust or a position that requires they protect our most
precious resource.
On September 24, 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate
Bill 96 into law.
Despite the Governor's reported commitment to vetoing bills
that are "Gut and Amend" forms of denying public
participation, the Governor has signed into law what may just
accomplish the exact opposite of what the author, Senator Dede
Alpert, claims in her bill description.
While certainly the passage of this bill provides wonderful
political cover for the numerous city councils that do not
heed the current scientific and legal updates and decide
against their constituents' wishes for contaminant-free water,
the anticipation that this bill will reduce lawsuits is just
as certainly incorrect.
Paramount in this bill is the attempt to supersede every local
decision to manage the quality of public water that may in any
way effect fluoridation.
If the law is applied unfettered it will mean:
Promoters of fluoridation may pick and choose which public
water systems will fluoridate despite any local circumstance
or technical aspects of water delivery, contribution to
existing troublesome levels of adverse contaminants, alternate
dental care programs, or financial capacity to await
reimbursement.
Promoters of fluoridation may continue to extort public water
suppliers through grant offers that require the recipient
water system to continue fluoridation beyond the funding
offered, at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.
Rather than the State indemnifying the public water supplier
as claimed in newspaper accounts, the newly amended statue
will allow the promoters of fluoridation to continue to extort
public water systems by requiring that the public water
supplier hold harmless, indemnify and defend the funding
agent, promoters of fluoridation, and the Department of Health
Services, at ratepayer and taxpayer expense.
Public water systems that wish to control the quality of their
water by choosing less contaminated products or redundancy to
assure consistent quality control will likely be denied the
expense as too costly by the statute's amendments that state
the Department of Health Services will make the determination
of reasonableness.
Conscientious water suppliers will likely be forced to choose
the "bait and switch" untested, unapproved, significantly
contaminated waste products from the phosphate fertilizer
industry, or force ratepayers and taxpayers to cover the
additional costs for less contaminated products.
Yet to be settled is where the appropriations for the engineer
that is to be employed or "recognized" by the Department of
Health Services for purposes of establishing reasonable costs
is going to come from. Watch for charitable funding from
promoters of fluoridation, or possibly another "Gut and Amend"
type of non public-participative legislation.
And that is if you think the intent of fluoridation is a
legitimate government concern.
As stated above, these actions are probable if not restrained.
We need up-to-date commitments from those of you that are
willing to ramp up and assist us in cutting through the
bureaucracy.
Jeff Green
National Director
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
1010 University Avenue #52
San Diego, CA 92103
(800) 728-3833
