If signed by Gov. Spencer Cox, the bill will take effect May 7.

The bill’s verbiage states that “a person may not add fluoride to water in, or water that will be introduced into, a public water system.” It also prohibits political subdivisions from enacting ordinances requiring the addition of fluoride to those systems.

Those living and working in Davis County will be among those impacted by the legislation. In November 2000, residents joined their Salt Lake County counterparts in voting to approve fluoridation.

Officials at the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, which supplies water to residents in Davis County as well as Weber, Morgan, Summit and Box Elder counties, have been bracing for this change for some time.

“We have had a lot of discussions throughout the years about fluoride,” Weber Basin Water Municipal and Industrial Water Department Manager Josh Hogge told the Standard-Examiner. “Fluoride has been something that Weber Basin has been adding to the water since the early 2000s when it was voted in.”

According to Hogge, fluoridating Davis County’s drinking water has been a costly endeavor. Because serviced water systems outside of Davis aren’t receiving fluoride, the district has been unable to dose water at its treatment plants.

Instead, remote fluoride dosing stations were strategically placed so the compound would go to the correct water systems.

“Honestly, the more sites you have, the more possibility there is for something to go wrong,” Hogge said. “We’ve had to be very careful for the last 20-plus years to make sure that all the equipment is functioning properly and dosing properly so that we don’t have any issues with overfeeds or underfeeds or things like that.”

As it stands, Weber Basin Water continues to add fluoride to Davis County’s water. Once the law goes into effect, thought, Hogge said the feeds will be stopped and dosing facilities “shut down appropriately.”

“And, eventually, we’ll be working to dispose of the leftover fluoride, the fluorosilicic acid that we have, so that it’s not a hazard just sitting there in our facilities,” he added.

Regardless of what the public sentiment toward fluoridation might be, Hogge said not having to administer the compound will reduce costs and free up distribution system operators to focus on other tasks.

He doesn’t anticipate staffing levels will be impacted by the change.

Hogge also noted that some operators had been physically affected while working in facilities where fluorosilicic acid is stored, despite the use of personal protective equipment.

“We’ve had many people reach out to us over the years — people who are for fluoride, people who are against it — and we value everyone’s opinion,” Hogge said. “From our perspective, if we were not feeding fluoride, that would be one less thing that we would have to worry about with potential failures of equipment.”

H.B. 81’s advancement comes after U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy again expressed skepticism about fluoridation.

For her part, bill sponsor Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, has acknowledged that fluoride has certain benefits but maintains that receiving it is an issue of “individual choice.”

The American Dental Association released a letter last month urging Cox to veto H.B. 81, citing fluoride’s positive impact on oral health.

While the signed bill would end community water fluoridation, a provision of H.B. 81 will allow for the prescribing of fluoride by pharmacists.