Tennessee Senate Bill SB1142

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Engrossed: 3/27/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 36; Title 7, Chapter 82 and Title 68, Chapter 221, relative to fluoride in water.

Summary

SB1142 requires each Tennessee utility system that sells water containing fluoride to obtain a certificate of analysis for that water and to post that certificate, along with the fluoride material safety data sheet, on the utility’s website. If the utility system does not have a website, the documents must be posted on the board of utility regulation’s website. The bill does not ban fluoridation or change the decision-making authority over whether fluoride is added to water; instead, it focuses on disclosure and public access to information about fluoridated water. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 7, Chapter 82, Part 7, and is set to take effect July 1, 2025. Its practical effect is to impose a new reporting and posting requirement on utility systems that provide fluoridated water, creating a transparency obligation and likely requiring utilities to maintain current testing or certification records. The measure may also affect state or local utility oversight practices by making fluoride-related documentation publicly available online.

Impact

SB1142 adds a new transparency requirement to Tennessee utility law by mandating that water systems selling fluoridated water obtain and publish a certificate of analysis and the fluoride safety data sheet. It affects utility systems, and if they lack a website, shifts the posting responsibility to the board of utility regulation’s website. The bill does not directly regulate fluoride levels or water treatment practices, but it does create a new compliance obligation for utilities and a public disclosure mechanism for consumers and regulators.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support. It was recommended for passage in the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee by a 7-2 vote and later passed third consideration on the floor by a 26-5 vote. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins indicate broad support with a smaller group of dissenting members.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether the state should require utilities to publicly disclose fluoride-related documentation, which may be viewed by supporters as a transparency and consumer-information measure and by opponents as an unnecessary administrative burden or a signal of skepticism toward fluoridation. Because there are no transcripts, the specific arguments are not recorded, but the dissenting votes suggest some disagreement over the need for the mandate and its implications for local utility operations and public health policy.