Kansas Senate Bill SB333

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/16/26

Caption

Prohibiting the use of fluoride additives in public water supplies.

Summary

SB 333 would prohibit the use of fluoride additives in Kansas public water systems. The bill amends multiple statutes governing water districts and public water supply systems to remove or limit authority to fluoridate water, and it expressly bars the secretary of health and environment from adopting any primary drinking water standard or rule that requires the addition of fluorides to public water supplies. It also revises the definition of “water quality additive” so that fluoride would no longer fit within the category of additives allowed for water quality purposes. The bill preserves existing water-system oversight in other respects, including permitting, monitoring, reporting, lead-free plumbing requirements, and backflow/cross-connection protections. It would repeal and replace portions of current law that now allow local water districts to fluoridate under specified notice-and-election procedures, effectively shifting fluoridation from a locally authorized option to a prohibited practice statewide. The act would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Impact

SB 333 would change Kansas law by removing statutory authority for public water systems and water districts to fluoridate drinking water and by preventing state drinking-water rules from requiring fluoride addition. It amends K.S.A. 19-3521a, 65-162a, 65-171m, and 65-171r, and repeals the existing versions of those provisions, thereby affecting local water districts, public water suppliers, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment/secretary of health and environment. The practical effect would be to prohibit fluoride additives in public water supplies statewide while leaving other water-treatment and safety regulations intact.

Sentiment

Based on the bill caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a policy restriction on fluoridation rather than a technical water-operations measure. The available context does not show formal support or opposition in committee, but the bill’s language suggests a clear anti-fluoridation position. Because no vote history or transcript excerpts are provided, the overall sentiment in the record cannot be measured beyond the bill’s stated purpose.

Contention

The central point of contention is fluoridation itself: whether local water districts should retain discretion to fluoridate public water supplies or whether the state should prohibit fluoride additives altogether. The bill removes the current local election/petition process that allows residents or boards to decide on fluoridation, which would likely concern local governments, public health officials, and residents who support community water fluoridation. Opponents would likely argue that the bill overrides local choice and public-health policy, while supporters would likely favor eliminating fluoride from drinking water on health, consent, or safety grounds.