SCHUYLKILL HAVEN - After discussing the pros and cons of adding fluoride to the water supply, no recommendation was made by the Schuylkill Haven water committee Wednesday at the borough council meeting.
Art Salisbury, 54, a borough resident, said fluoride does not need to go back in the water supply.
"It's out of the system. Leave it out of the system," he said.
The issue was sent to the committee comprising of council members after it was discussed at length at several prior council meetings.
The council voted Feb. 5 to add fluoride into the water supply. Voting in favor of adding the fluoride were council President Marlin Berger Jr. and members Ruth Tucci, Paul Bedway and Kurt Montz. Council members Jerry Bowman, Roger Spotts and Tom Gordon voted against it.
Fluoride was in the borough's water supply until 2011, after a motion to keep fluoride failed on Feb. 3, 2010.
The state Department of Environmental Protection must approve a permit for adding fluoride into the water.
Berger reiterated that he believes the addition of fluoride to the water is beneficial.
Mayor Mike Devlin expressed his reservations, citing different studies and the fact that additional information is needed.
"I just think we are taking a great risk. I really do," he said.
Bedway, a member of the water committee, said he agreed with various agencies about the benefits of fluoride.
"I looked at the American Dental Association. If they don't know what they're talking about, who would?" he said.
Devlin then shared questions he had for borough solicitor Mark Semanchik, who had said previously that an ordinance was not needed to add fluoride.
Devlin said he wanted a written legal opinion of the situation, asking if an ordinance would be necessary, what is classified as a legislative act, why making a change in a water standard would not be covered under legislative acts as described in a section of the law and what the role of motions is in establishing policy other than through Roberts Rules, a guideline of order, in the borough code.
Semanchik responded by giving a written copy of his answers in which he said were based on a newspaper article.
The letter to borough council stated in part that "this is to advise that I am of the opinion that borough council's decision to re-introduce fluoride into its water supply on February 5, 2014, does not require the adoption of an ordinance."
The letter continued by saying that Semanchik consulted with the PA Borough's Association on this matter. The letter provided a brief history of similar instances when the borough removed fluoride from its water supply and that an ordinance was not needed.
Semanchik said 3301.1(b) of the borough code replaces and consolidates certain sections that were previously in place.
"These sections distinguish between legislative and routine, ministerial or administrative powers. The operation of the water treatment plant and the preparation of the public water supply fall within the later, not the former, especially upon consideration of the need to comply with federal and state rules, regulations, and guidelines and the need to obtain permits from PA DEP for process changes to assure continued compliance," the code reads.
Devlin said he would comment more in depth after he read the letter but said he still thought an ordinance was needed.