No fluorine shall be introduced into the water of any lake, pond, reservoir or stream tributary from which the domestic water supply is taken unless and until the municipality using said waters has held a public hearing as to the introduction of fluorine into the public water supply of said municipality, and the voters of such municipality have approved such action pursuant to RSA 44:16 or 52:23.
In 1999, a question was placed on the City of Manchester’s municipal election ballot to see if the voters were in favor of fluoridating the city’s public water supply. The question was presented to the voters after the public hearing required by RSA 485:14. The result was that the voters favored adding fluoride to the Manchester Water Works water supply. No similar public hearings or referenda were held in any other municipality serviced by the Manchester Water Works, such as Auburn, Bedford, Goffstown, Hooksett or Londonderry. Officials of those towns, however, were notified that the Manchester Water Works would be fluoridating the water. The city began fluoridating the water on December 19, 2000.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that RSA 485:14 required approval by the voters of each municipality serviced by the Manchester Water Works before fluoridated water could be provided to any residents of the municipality. The court further ordered Manchester to stop fluoridation by April 2004, unless a legislative remedy was enacted or the surrounding towns voted to approve fluoridation. The city appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
On appeal, the city argued that RSA 485:14 requires a referendum vote only by the municipality that owns and operates the water system, not every municipality in which a resident receives water from the system. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the plain language of the statute requires a referendum in each municipality serviced by the Manchester Water Works. The Court held that the phrase, “municipality using said waters,” set forth in the statute means any municipality that has residents using water from the fluoridated water supply.
Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. In so doing, the Court extended the time for compliance to June 30, 2005.