Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Minutes of 10/16/06CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO RnARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Adviso Board DATE OF MEETING: October 16, 2006 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Jenmfer Gra , 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS - Ken Wilson, Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, Bart Miller, Kelly DiNatale. STAFF - Ned W illiams, Suzanne Givler, Randy Cri[tenden, Bret Linenfelser, Amy Stmthers, Annie Noble, Jennifer Gra , secre WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL UASI-JUDICIAL Agenda Item 1- Call to Order ~ The meetrng was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Agenda Item 2- Meeting minutes -August 21, 2006 Knonf moved to approve the minutes from August 21, 2006 with recommended changes. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. - Meeting minutes -Retreat Bvers moved to approve the minutes from September 1S, 2006 as submitted. DiNatale seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Agenda Item 3- Public participation and comment. There was none. Public Partici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4- Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on policy issues related to the Drinking Water Standards IniGafive 2B Ned Wilhams, with the help of other utilities staff inembers, gave a 10-minute presentation on curren[ pracrice, chemica] nature of product, impac[ of proposed initiative, followed by questions from the WRAB. WRAB questions and comments: • Miller. Slide l3, second bullet Has there been no research on other fluonde products? W illiams: We have talked with some suppliers but we have not come out with a conclusive answer if there is a product out there without a trace of lead or arsenic. Staff is not aware of any other communiry that is meeting Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) with a fluoride product. . DiNatale: Do you know the heavy metal concenRations in the other chem~cals that are commonly used for drinking water fluoridation[? Givler: For sodium fluoride, the AW WA standard states that the maximum heavy metals concentration is 400 ppm. According to one manufac[urer, the typical concentration of arsenic is less than or equal to 40 ppm, which is similar to what is in the fluorosilicic acid fed by the City of Boulder. 14s possible that actual concentrations are less, but I could no[ find any municipalities with ac[ual test data on sodium fluoride. For the sodium silicofluoride the AW WA standard states that the maximum heavy metals concentration is 500 ppm. Denver uses sodium sihcofluoride and a test of their chemical showed that all metals were present in concenhations less than 1 ppm, in other words, a[ undetectable concentrations. • DiNatale: Do you know how much it would cost of [he City of Boulder to conver[ [o sodium silicofluonde? Givler. I have ehemical costs, but this doesdt aeeount for cap~tal costs for changing the system from a liquid system to a powder system. For the chemical costs for the sodium silicofluoride I would estimate approximately $26,000 per year and for the sodium fluoride approximately $83,000 a year. • DiNatale: How much does the city current pay for fluorosilicic acid? Givler: Our cutrent chemical costs are approximately $36,000 per year. • DiNatale: Does the Sta[e of Colorado provide grants [o help pay for the conversion from a liquid to a powder. Williams: I do not know. • Wilson: If this initiative is passed, based on the staff's reading, will fluoridat~on be imposs~ble? Williams: We could still fluoridate the water. We have not found a roduct that we could use that WRAB Summary August 21, 2006 Page No. 1 fits the standards of the imtiatrve. Fluoridation isdt prohibited but we haven't ]ocated a commumty that is using a product [hat has no Vace elements. • Wilson. So if there were no trace elements, if voted yes, could we fluoridate the water? W illiams; Yes, but we would have to have the approval of the Food and Drug Admimstration (FDA). • Wilson: How do you get the FDA [o approve ~t? Williams: The most direct way is a congressional act~on [ha[ gives [he FDA regula[ory power. • Wilson: We would have to amend Federal ordinances that regulate drinlung water? Williams: Yes • Wilson: Wha[ percentage of the U.S. population fluoridates water? Givler: 67-70 percent of the U.S. fluoridates their water. Of those, 8 percent use sodmm fluocide, 15 percent sodium silicofluoride, and remainder is hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS). • Miller: How did you calculate the actual levels of contaminants? Givler: These figures are the concentrations based on the initiative. We calwlated [his for the finished water by pulimg historica] data, lookmg at how much fluorosilicic is used and by using the highest arsenic concentration that we see. • Byers: The language on the initiative is vague. If passed, would this prevent us from chlorating our waters? Is there a set of standazds to measure how safe our water is for drinlung? Will~ams: It is the stafPs opiniou that Fluoride is the only thing impacted by this initiative, bu[ there is no legal standards enforcing this. It is possible that this language could prohibit othec chemicals in the future. Clean Water Advocates (CWA) of Boulder represen[atives Randall (Randy) Weiner and Richazd Knaub gave a] 0-minute presentation on the 2B ballo[ ini[iatrve, each coming from a different viewpoint on fluoridation. • First presenter Randy Weiner, of the anti-fluoridation portion of 2B supporters, emphasized asking the board: Are you ready to accept responsibilrry for adding to our drinking water a product that contams contaminants, which has not been approved by the FDA, which has never been subject to a smgle long-tertn test of its safety? • Second presenter Dr. Richard Knaub, presented on behalf of the pro-fluoridation 2B supporters, emphasizing usmg a differen[ method of fluondahng city water than wha[ is currently being used instcad of takmg out fluorida[ion completely. WRAB questions and comments: • DiNatale: Is this a contamination issue orjust an anti-fluonda[ion issue? (Addressmg Weiner; Are you against fluoridation?) Weiner: The group is not addressing that. . DiNatale: If the ciry should agree to look into other ways of fluoridahng water, would you to promo[e passage of 2B? Knaub: That would split the steering committee as half are pro-fluoride and half are not. 1 would foresee a splinter group. • DiNatale: Have [he other campaigns around the wuntry worked at mshtuting regulations at a higher level than just local city water boards? Weiner. The Safe Drinking Water Act states no National level regalahons. • Miller: Zero is the goal for [he MCLG and is not the actual EPA/FDA regulation. In the examples, there is some level of contaminants. Knaub: Not in my examples. That was industrial grade. Millec Is the pharmaceutieal grade with zero contaminants? Knaub: Yes, but I cadt tell you if that grade could be used/purchased since [hat was not my focus. The grade would probably have to be something other than industrial grade. • Wilson: Why didn't this committee come to the WRAB before and complain? Knaub: I came on board aRer this petition was submitted. According to the City Attomey, only a peririon would be effective. Wilson: Two years ago Randy and others brought in an anti-fluoridation presrntation and did noi address the quality of the products being used and other altematives. Knaub: You were informed of contaminations and you opted not to research further. Wilson: We didn't know other ophons were available. • Wilson: Init~ative seems to be a Catch-22. It makes it impossible to fluoridate ciry water by any product, the language ~s vague and it puts the responsibility of approval on a group that does not have the authority to do so. Why is the initiativc wntten that way? Knaub: I thmk it is still possible WRAB Summary August 21, 2006 Page No. 2 to mfluence change even if you do no[ support 2B. Wilson: The City Attomey advised the board that the inihative would eliminate fluoridation. Weiner. I think the language is very clear. DiNatale: If the CiTy decided to fluoridate with a different form, would it gam [he support of the pro-fluoride subgroup of the steering committee? Knaub: ] cannot speak for everyone, but I would resign and support the city. Byers: Who has the correct figurc on the asserted risk exposure from contammants m Boulder's water? Is it 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 1Q000 bladder and lung cancers? Weiner: The issue isn't the numbers. Byers: What is the correct figure? Wemer: I in 1,000. Larry Samer from the Vote No on 2B Committee gave a 10-minute presentation against the 2B imtiative. Samer poin[ed out the problems with the 2B miUative based on his research and his main question for the board was: Will you take the responsibility for no[ protecting people very much, if at all, from a health threat in exchange for that small protection against cavities, den[al health, oral health; you throw away a huge benefit in terms of life-long health condi[ions. You also introduce an extremely large amount of pain and suffering because they have no[ recerved something that you could have easily provided safely and effectively. I urge you to oppose 2B. WRAB questions and comments: • Miller: Who did you get a response from at the FDA? Samer. This ~s quoted from the Denver FDA office and I got a response from Devon Kuntz. I asked: "Does the FDA have any [echnical ability to assess [he safety and effectivecess of any water additive with a margin of safety [ha[ is protective against all adverse health and cosmetic effects at all dosage ranges consistenE with unrestricted human water consumption?" The answer was "No. The use of qualifiers m this statement such as all and unrestricted, would make it impossible to provide this level of assurance with any substance, including water itself." . DiNatale: Have we seen cases of dental problems in relation to fluonde use? Answered by public Karen Cody Carlson: Yes, bu[ [hey are usually from other communities that have come here with the problem. The meeting was opened to public commen[, ]imited [0 3 minutes per person. Public Comment: • Jeff Wong, 3400 Penrose Place, and Orthodontist in Boulder: The Harvard study used in hnking fluoride to cancer is highly discredited. The lead researchers from this group said they have never repl~ca[ed the study and the first s[udy was proven [o be flawed. Later they urged readers to be cautious about using the study for policy. Please disregard [his study in arguments. • Simon Heine, 3765 Birchwood Place #53, Favors 2B because it causes us to re-evaluate what we are putting in our bodies. There are many chemicals that we used to recommend and now we find are very harmful (i.e. smoking, DDT, etc.). Most countries don't use fluoride anymore. There are reasons to be concemed about lead and arsenic. Boulder is a leader in a lot of areas in social policies and should do [he same m water. • Karen Cody Carison, 877 S. Boulder Road, non-profi[ dental provider: We all care about our public health. The people that come to Carlson for care are not educated and have not had proper denta] care and to keep fluoride in the water is just one way that we can help these people tha[ have no other oral health care. More and more studies link oral health with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and birth defects. Carlson is against 2B. • Robert Murphy, 2601 N. Broadway, dentist in Bouldcr: There is stark difference in oral health with Boulder kids that have fluoridated water and others. The kids that aze going [o be hurt the worst are the lower socio-economic classes. Please recommend agains[ 2B. • Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey: It is questionable about the systemic effects of fluoride. We need to know if this issue is fluoride or not. I am against lead and arsenic and maybe fluoride, but I dodt know if this is a fluoride issue or not. I am also concerned about my cats, whether or not they will be able to drink fluoridated water. Or wi[h my dental health, will I be alive to [ake caze of my cats? I don't want to put anything unnecessary in my body. Things are changing all of the time (for example non-Merwry dentist practices.) I am also concemed about thc long-tertn affects. WRAB Summary August 21, 2006 Page No. 3 HIrk Cunningham, 977 7'" Street, Conservat~onal chair for Sierra club: the Sierra club supports 2B. Our firs[ concern is with the fluoride. Is this the most efficient way to treat teeth with flaoridarion? If it ends up in the sewer, will it affect aquatic life? Concemmg fluoride as a treatmen[, this is not an efficient method to treat children with fluonde. Ben Binder, 720 South 41" Street: Binder did not have fluoride when he was a kid and have had dental problems. I am mad at [he m~smformation of the supporters. People have been saying the Ciry of Boulder has been poisoni~g citizens and the City of Boulder puts out a water quality report and found that the only thing the City of Boulder has been exceedtng is their goal of zeto contammants, not any regulations. Jennette Hillery, 999 Meadow Dr.: Fom~er WRAB member: During the time when this project was first presented, which Hillary agrees with previous sta[ements by W ilson tha[ this issue was initially presented to WRAB as bemg about fluoride. She has also worked in social health work and has seen mothers and children that do not have proper care and fluoridation can help with this for lower mcome classes. If this passes, we are domg harm to our low-income populations. Public discussion was closed. WRAB deliberation: • Wilson: I think I have been fortunate to raise my children with fluondated watec 1 would be concemed as a paren[ if Boulder took it out. I think the language of [he initiative is flawed. We have heard both legal opinions and I have a lot of concems with the language. The scientific imphcations are also flawed. I would however want to take another look at fluoridation. I did not l~ow that other cities methods mrght have fewer impunties. I think the city should look at the caprta] costs. But I think it would be a mistake by doing so by passing 2B. • Knopf: This is a public health dilemma and there is no perfect solutioa I would support continued fluoridation, but I would not be opposed to lookmg at other fluoridation options. You have trade- offs when you look at altematives, but we still need to do so. • DiNatale: I had a bias being in the previous employment positron tha[ oversaw un-fluoridated watec I thinlc the langaage of the imtia[ive ~s flawed. I woald like to see WRAB make a recommendation to the city manager to go to [he best chemical wi[h the lowest impurities. Is there a more efficient way (as mentioned by the Siersa club member)? I think it is the most efficient way. In an overall balance we woulddt change any[hing by changing fluotides. 1 would like to explore fluoride and change the opinion of the supporters that are more concemed with the right fluoride than no fluonde. • Miller: I am echoing Wilson and D~Natale. I[hink we are hurting the low-income by taking out fluorida[iou and this initiahve is written in a way to take it out I would like to see staff, WRAB and council to look into other fluonde. • Byers: In accord with other comments. 1 would like the alternative fluoride d~swssion. I do no[ see how this discussion could happen ~f 2B passes so I will not support it. . Wilson: I think we should at [h~s point make a recommendation wi[h the preamble language provided to us by the City At[omey in case of such an instance. In addihon, the charter {anguage should change in order to allow WRAB to make a direct recommendation to council instead of to the city manager. Wilson moved with the following: The WRAB conducted a regular business meeting on October 16, 2006, at the Boulder County Public Health auditorium (Iris and Broadway) and included a public hearing about the Drinking Water S[andards Initiative 2B tha[ will be on the November 7, 2006 ballo[. The WRAB initiated this public hearing so that the WRAB might wnsider a possible recommendation that the city manager recommend that the Boulder City Council take a position on or be advised of any policy issues regarding the Drinking Water Standards Inifiative 2B. The WRAB recommends against passage of 26. WRAB further recommends engaging in discussion of alternative fluoridation methods to the current hydrofluorosilic acid method and directs staff to timely engage in discussion of acceptable fluoridation methods with pro-fluorida[ion 2B proponents. WRAB Summary August 21, 2006 Page No. 4 Seconded by Bvers• Vote: 5-0 in favor. Agenda Item 5- Matters From Staff o Williams: Board needs to review and make cottechons to the board appointment process questions and retum to Ned WilLams or Jennifer Gray by Oct. 26`". Matters from Board - o Wilson: Council should have the rates quoted from the consultants and this should be emphasized m Council discussion. Williams: All of this informakon has gone to Council and tomorrow mght is the first reading. o Wilson: When the rate consultants were considering conservatron, what percent reduction in water usage resulted in no excess revenue? Williams: I will get [hat to you. o Byers: I attended [he hearing for the Betasso project impacts. Concems on the project included traffic on Sugazloaf Road and [he quality of dnving by the contractor. I don't know if there will be problems with Betasso, but I expec[ there will be some regulations that the ci[y will have to follow on this pro~ect and on fu[ure projec[s. o Miller: Could we get an update on the recommendations made [o Ellmghouse concemmg the Boulder Flycasters presentatron from August? Williams: Information will be given m form of written materials in advance of the meeting but not as an agenda item. Agenda Item 6- Discussion of schedule for future meefings. Covered in Matters from Staff Agenda Item 7- Adjournment Motion: Knopf moves to adjourn Seconded by DiNatale Vote: 5-0 in favor. Meetin ad'ourned at 9:55 PM Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next meeting will be Monday, Nov. 20 - 7 p.m., regular mee[ing Municipal Services Center, 5050 East Pead Strect. Minutes approved by: Date: WRAB Summary August21,2006 Page No. 5