Tennessee House Bill HB2396

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/4/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 221, relative to fluoride.

Summary

HB2396 amends Tennessee law governing public water systems by prohibiting the addition of fluoride to a public water system by the supplier of water who owns, operates, or controls that system. The bill is framed as an amendment to Title 68, Chapter 221 of the Tennessee Code Annotated and would take effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the measure would remove or bar fluoridation by public water system operators in Tennessee, affecting municipal utilities, water districts, and other public suppliers that currently add fluoride to drinking water. Because the bill is written as a targeted amendment to existing water-system law, it would directly change the legal authority of water suppliers regarding fluoridation practices.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-221-711 by adding a new subdivision that expressly treats the addition of fluoride to a public water system by the system’s supplier as prohibited conduct. This would alter the legal framework for public water system operations in Tennessee and could require affected utilities to stop fluoridation practices if they currently do so. The change would primarily affect public water suppliers, local governments, and state or local agencies overseeing water system compliance.

Sentiment

The limited voting history suggests the bill has generated some support but also meaningful opposition. In the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee, the measure advanced by a narrow 4-3 vote, indicating a divided response rather than broad consensus. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed arguments, but the close vote suggests the issue is politically and policy-wise contested.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether public water systems should be allowed to add fluoride at all. Supporters of the bill likely view the measure as limiting government involvement in drinking water treatment, while opponents likely see fluoridation as a public health practice that helps prevent tooth decay. The narrow subcommittee vote indicates disagreement among legislators over the balance between local water-system authority, public health policy, and consumer choice.