To enact new section 6109.20 and to repeal section 6109.20 of the Revised Code to prohibit a public water system from adding fluoride to its water.
Summary
HB182 would prohibit any public water system in Ohio from adding fluoride to the water it supplies. The bill creates a new section of the Revised Code stating that no public water system may add fluoride, and it also includes a repeal of section 6109.20, indicating the measure is intended to replace or remove the existing statutory provision on the same topic. In practical terms, the bill would end municipal or system-level fluoridation programs operated by public water systems in the state.
The measure is straightforward and narrowly focused on drinking water treatment policy. It does not set alternative standards for fluoride levels, create exemptions, or assign enforcement procedures in the introduced text. Its effect would be to change the legal authority of public water systems and local governments that currently fluoridate water, while also affecting residents who receive treated public water and any public health programs tied to fluoridation.
Impact
If enacted, HB182 would amend Ohio law in Chapter 6109 governing public water systems by barring the addition of fluoride to public drinking water. This would directly affect public water utilities, local water authorities, and any state or local practices that currently authorize fluoridation as part of water treatment. The bill would likely require systems that add fluoride to stop doing so and could have downstream effects on public health policy, utility operations, and any related procurement or treatment protocols.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be introduced without recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. The bill’s sponsorship suggests support from its introducer and cosponsors, but the absence of transcripts or voting history means broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the record provided. Overall, the measure is presented as a direct policy prohibition rather than a compromise proposal.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely to be whether public water systems should be allowed to fluoridate water at all. Supporters of the bill would generally be expected to argue against mandatory or routine fluoridation, while opponents would likely emphasize public health benefits and the long-standing use of fluoride to reduce tooth decay. Because no committee discussion or votes are included, no specific arguments, amendments, or opposing legislators are identified in the available materials.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.