House Public Health, Welfare And Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1397
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1397”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB205
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB205”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1038
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…t think he's here to run 1215 or 1256 Representative Valtis House Bill 1038 Representative Malone 1186 Passover If y'all don't mind I'm…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1190
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “There we go. House Bill 1190, Representative Hammer. I think you'd like to run that next…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1312
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1312”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1396
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1396”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1402
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ilkins would like to set His minimum wage bill, it would be House Bill 1402 for special order on next Tuesday, so a week from today.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1468
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…file in. First, Representative Hammer would like to set his House Bill 1468 for special order on Thursday. So with that objection, we'l…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
while we're letting everybody file in. First, Representative Hammer would like to set his House Bill 1468 for special order on Thursday. So with that objection, we'll have that 1468 special order on two days from now, Thursday. Also, Representative Wilkins would like to set His minimum wage bill, it would be House Bill 1402 for special order on next Tuesday, so a week from today.
So without objection, that will be set for
special order then. There is a 4 p.m. meeting today you should have received an
email about regarding the payment improvement initiative. Senator Bledsoe called that Senate Public Health Committee meeting so we're going to meet in conjunction with her I think I should be there I may not be that's really irrelevant but just if I'm not there you know that I was already obligated but the point is everybody's free to attend it's informational if
you're interested in that payment improvement and the process and the where that stands feel free to attend that will be in room 171 kind of in that vein it's it's not really a secret i think some of the i'm always just a fan of just putting things on the table that's that's not a joke about table and a bill but they uh but you know everybody's probably been reading about you know a lot of the meetings and all the questions surrounding the medicaid expansion the meetings that the governor had last week at um while he was at the governor's
conference anticipate getting a lot of the answers to questions that have been asked soon when that happens I think there's a lot of them in talking individually especially with committee members I think I found that that things aren't always clear in the newspaper or just various reports I think it would be helping that to the fault of no one it's just it's a very complicated subject and I think it would be helpful to have some informal meetings where we just go over the status of everything, maybe even review some of what other states have done
and some of the options that have been granted from the federal government in terms of expansion and just really have some informal meetings with no agenda just so people can get information and then eventually, you know, a decision has to be made. So I don't know. I don't have a time frame for that but just look for that. But it will probably be structured in the same way as these payment improvement meetings, maybe mid to late afternoon, non-committee meetings so we could still do our regular agendas in the regularly timed meetings but have time to sit down and just plow through some numbers of information on Medicaid expansion.
So just look for that. Also, March 6th, the Senate Public Health has set up a tour at UAMS for the telemedicine program. If you would like to participate in that, email Phil and let him know. It's going to be 4 o'clock on March 6th. There's a few spots. I don't think the whole committee can go, but if that's an area that you'd be interested in, email him and get plugged in there. I think I covered all of my housekeeping items.
There we go. House Bill 1190, Representative Hammer. I think you'd like to run that next week. We're getting close. Okay. We'll pass over. Representative Westerman I don't think he's here to run 1215 or 1256 Representative Valtis House Bill 1038 Representative Malone 1186 Passover If y'all don't mind I'm going to skip over and just make sure nobody else is here to run any other bills on the agenda
1018 Representative Nichols Senator Keyes Is anybody here to run any other bill? Okay, if you go
to the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present Senate Bill 205.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
4:25
Remember, Senate Bill 205 by Senator Johnny Key. If y'all will take a look at that, it's striking a whole lot of
language. The important thing to know, let's see if I can get this pulled up here so I can answer your questions too. The important thing to know is that this is obsolete language. It's no longer needed. The only thing it's good at doing is confusing. And if that were not true, we would have a lot of debate about this
because it's striking out what could look like a lot of important language. But let me tell you that DHS is not against this. I believe they may have actually brought the bill forward, and Mr. Chair, my bill is not pulling up here on my machine, but I know what it says, which is it strikes a lot of language, and I'm glad to try to answer any questions somewhat blindly, but the important thing to know is that this is obsolete language. The Department of Human Services is not against this bill.
Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Very thorough. Representative Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Wouldn't want to let you off too easy,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:41
but just because you can't get it up on the pad, would you – I'm here now. I'm good now. Okay. Can't get it up on the pad, so would you at least tell us the general area of the language that's being stricken, what subject matters?
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
5:55
It's Medicare. I didn't know everyone else had the same issue, but it's – golly, to go through all the lines would take quite some time.
I'm Representative Hammer, but it's concerning economically disadvantaged counties in the state with Medicare. And again, like I said, if we didn't know that DHS was not, you know, this is actually kind of their language you're trying to strike, it might look alarming to you. But it's almost all Medicare
Speaker 12
6:23
language. So at this point, it's not taking away any services, reduction of any
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:28
services or anything like that, just basic cleanup. that's absolutely right thank you thank
you representative hammer and I we're
having no problems with the pulling up the the bill I might put a couple people on the spot but director Selig do you know anything about this that was
Speaker 22
6:51
Jim Johnson with the Department of Human Services I know some about it we just in Arkansas with we run the Medicaid program we really have nothing to do with Medicare we frankly don't know where this language came from we're fine with getting rid of it because there's no such thing as far as we know
as a Medicare waiver and that's what this refers to so we're fine with getting rid of the
language so summarizing you're okay with removing the language you don't see any consequences of it yes okay it's just cleanup okay
Speaker 26
7:25
Vice-Chair Murdoch you're recognized for question Mr. Cedar thank you for coming so Representative Link mentioned that it had something to do with economically disadvantaged counties or areas of the state that some of this language is striking and I can't pull it up on my technology here so I'm just a little bit concerned about some specifics that may
be in there that may be of
interest yes sir again I don't have much much background on it my sense is that someone at
Speaker 22
7:51
at some point may have been thinking about Medicaid thought there could be a waiver that would help disadvantaged counties but this refers to Medicare we're not aware of any waiver that would be specific to disadvantaged counties so we just can't see any benefit of keeping this language and certainly don't see that anybody's gonna get hurt by
Speaker 26
8:08
removing it okay so it's not gonna fit it's not gonna affect the care the current status of anything you know the benefits and whatever people are
receiving now this piece of legislation does not hinder any of that to your knowledge that's right thank you thank
you chair thank you for the questions representative love you're recognized
for question mr. ceiling who who administers on the state level who administers Medicare really no one Medicare
is a federally run program okay so
there's no state agencies that could be impacted by this not that I can think of okay thank you
thank you representative love any other questions for a representative link okay seeing none
thank you for the test do you have a motion or a question okay thank you is anybody in the audience signed up to speak for against the bill okay if not what's the pleasure the committee representative over you recognized for motion motion do pass any discussion on the motion if not all in favor say aye any opposed congratulations representative link you passed your bill thank y'all i don't think anybody else is here to run any other bills of the agenda
you you would okay then we'll first i'm going to recognize speaker carter uh if you'd like to join us at the end
Representative Over
Unverified
9:34
of the table you'll be recognized thank you mr chairman members of the committee it's honor to be here today i will keep this short and sweet i want to commend all of you for your hard work and deliberations that you engaged in over these past weeks. I know you've dealt with a lot of difficult issues, a lot of emotional issues, and I commend you for that.
Today begins when I'll call the third quarter. And, you know, I'm here today to let you know that the chairman and I and some others will be visiting with the governor at 3 o'clock today to digest what he's learned from his trip to Washington. and hopefully once this is done we will have the options that we've excuse me we will know the options that the state has dealing with affordable health care act and to that end i just would respectfully ask all of you to start focusing on that and let's let's all come together deal with
the issue at hand i know the chairman's working hard on it the vice chairman's working hard on it and my other members of this committee are working hard on it. Let's get to work, and let's get to work on it. And I think we're there in the context of I think we're going to have the information in hand to take up the issue. And if anybody has any questions, comments, or concerns, see the chairman, see me, see the vice chairman, and we'll be forthcoming with the information that we learned this afternoon.
So I appreciate your hard work. We've got five or six weeks left, and it's time to get some of this stuff done. So I
appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Letting, do you want to run 1396? Both. Okay. If you
go to the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present your bills. And just for the audience and members of the committee, Representative Westerman does plan to run 1312. He's in revenue and tax right now. I'm just clearing out some of this stuff, hoping we can kill some time, clear the agenda,
and then he'll be here to present his bill. But that's the plan for now. So Representative Letting, you're recognized to present 1396. Thank you,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
11:47
Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I wrote paper copies of my bills, so just not trusting the technology today. We just have two bills here from ADEQ. It represents 50% of their entire legislative package for this session. They're not doing a whole lot. and the two bills that we have today are fairly minor. We'll start with House Bill 1397. All we're doing here, the 88th General Assembly passed Act 809,
which directed the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission to establish rules and regulations for procedure to pay consultants for certain equipment purchases. Unfortunately, that resulted in a direct conflict with another bit of code, Arkansas Code 87905, which restricts the director to expend funds only for the sole purposes listed in this section so all we're doing with that particular bill is getting rid of that conflict thank you is
Speaker 30
12:37
there are there any questions representative Meeks thank
Speaker 47
12:45
you mr. chair under I'm trying to get get
Speaker 48
12:49
it up towards the right thing under section 1 and I guess subsection 6 it It says to reimburse a consultant under 87907 for the purchase of equipment needed to undertake corrective action. Could you kind of explain? I believe I'll let Ms.
Karen Bassett
Unverified
13:03
Bassett with ADAQ explain. Okay, thank you. Good morning. My
Chair
Unverified
13:08
name is Karen Bassett. I'm the Chief Deputy Director at the Department of Environmental Quality. This provision is the provision that Representative Letting was discussing. There are a couple of portions of the bill that talk about what money can be used for.
There's one that specifically talks about the fund itself, and then one talks about reimbursement to owner-operators. And before the statutory changes in 2011, all reimbursements went directly to the owner-operators of the tanks. The change that was made in 2011 allowed, if the owner-operator and the consultant wanted to do that, for the consultant to actually directly purchase equipment and get reimbursed by the fund for that, and potentially reuse that equipment on other sites. So this is just a provision that allows the monies and the fund
Speaker 56
13:52
to be used to reimburse those consultants
to make it consistent with the other
Speaker 47
13:58
provision. Could you, because I'm not familiar with the petroleum
Speaker 48
14:01
storage tank industry, when you're talking about consultants, could you kind of explain what a consultant is? Because when I think consultant, I think kind of a political, somebody that just kind of, you know, advises somebody else. So could you kind
Chair
Unverified
14:15
of go a little bit further? Sure. The Petroleum Storage Tank Trust Fund is actually set up for a couple of purposes. It reimburses owner-operators who have confirmed a release at their site from an underground or a covered above-ground storage tank for the cost for investigation and remediation of those releases.
So the consultants we're talking about here are environmental consultants that do site assessment work in the field and also do remediation work in the field.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:45
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Hammer
Thank you Mr. Chair I'm looking on line 20 or 19 I think it's on the second page
It says a release site property owner or adjacent property owner
that violates subdivision of this section is liable for investigation site assessment and a corrective action cost resulting from the violations. That's
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
15:17
actually House Bill 1396. We're on 1397. I'm just getting ahead
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
15:20
of the game so you know what I'm going to
appreciate the heads up, Representative Hammer. Thank you. Representative Love, you're recognized.
We're on 13 – well,
Speaker 69
15:44
shoot. I hate to ask. We're on $13.96, right? Are you not
going to run $13.96? I
$96? I'm trying to keep it interesting. Okay. All right. $13.97. Any other questions on $13.97? Representative Ward,
you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 78
16:12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you tell us exactly
Chair
Unverified
16:19
what the balance of the trust fund is as of today? I have the financial statement on the trust fund as of the end of January, so I can give it to you for January 31st of 2013. There is currently a fund balance, let's see, $21,741,225.69, cents, and of that $21 million, all of it is currently earmarked for approved
costs, but for $8,855,303.66. And so how are you all planning on replenishing your trust
Speaker 81
16:56
fund? The trust fund is actually a three-tenths
Speaker 79
17:00
of a cent environmental petroleum fee that is paid
Chair
Unverified
17:05
at the wholesale level on gasoline sales on fuel sales and it's collected by the Department of Revenue along with the motor fuels tax so we are
constantly getting that money into the fund as we are constantly sending money out of the fund for reimbursement to owners and
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:34
operators for their costs Representative Hamer, you're recognized for a question on 1397. Thank you, sir. I'm on
House Bill 1397, second page, toward the end. Transfer under the section does not affect, and then it says payment or compensation damages
to a third party. Does this release the owner or the operator who was originally responsible for the incident in the first place from any sort of liability or future ability to collect from them? No, sir, it doesn't. And
Chair
Unverified
18:05
one of the other changes that was made in the 2011 bill was to allow the transfer of eligibility for trust fund coverage from a prior site owner to a current site owner or if they had already transferred the property and didn't want to be involved in the cleanup
because now somebody else is occupying and using that property. We just needed to clarify to make sure our statute was consistent with federal law that when you transfer eligibility for coverage under the fund, it does not relieve your liability under state or federal law for the release itself or for third-party damages from that release. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 56
18:39
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hammer. I don't
have anybody else signed up for a question, So thank you for the presentation on the bill. Is there anybody in
the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill?
Okay. If not, what's the pleasure of the committee? Okay. Motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Representative, letting you pass your bill. Now you'll be
Speaker 44
19:09
recognized to present 1396. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. With 1396, all
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
19:15
we're doing is adding a definition for release site property owner to clarify the law. Initially, I know some of my colleagues in the House who farm had some concerns.
This bill does not apply to anybody who farms, so that is not a concern here. And also, initially, realtors had a few concerns, but ADEQ and the realtors got together, and the realtors are now fine with
this particular bill, too. If the realtors are fine and the farmers are
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
19:42
fine, who's not fine? Anybody? I can't imagine who would not
support this wonderful piece of legislation. What property would fall into this change then, if it's not farmers, it's not Realtors?
Chair
Unverified
19:56
It's the traditional property where you've had a release from a regulated storage tanks. And we don't regulate farm tanks. They're exempt
from the bill. Okay. I thought I saw some hands, but I didn't
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:13
get the names. Okay. Representative Hammer? Okay, I'm on the second page, lines 19 through 22 is where I wanted to base my question from, please. When it talks about the site property owner, and then it says or adjacent property owner,
and then you take out the word shall be and then put is liable, can you tell me an example where somebody who may be, and I'm giving an illustration, has a property sitting next to a gas station that's had a link in the tank, how it is that that person next to that site is protected or held liable
Speaker 92
20:50
under this clause? Under the current law, the owner-operator that is the owner-operator at the
Chair
Unverified
20:56
time that the release occurred is required under state and federal law
to investigate and abate that release to two goals the first one is they have to remove free product to the maximum extent practicable and the second one is that they have to obey any release of contaminated soil or groundwater that poses an unacceptable risk so the program is a risk-based driven program if their contamination has already moved off their property at the time the release is noted or it moves so fast but once the release is noted but another person's property is contaminated
in order for them to abate their releases they have to have the cooperation of that third party the current statute and the law since the 90s has always said that if you're an adjacent property owner and you refuse to allow the owner operator that's responsible for the release to do that cleanup then liability now transfers to you because you are prohibiting them from complying with the law all we're doing in this is recognizing that a lot of these properties that had were former gas stations are now drugstores and they're all on great
corners and in all of the city so now there are a lot of these sites where they've turned over now we just want to make sure that if there is a new site owner that is not the person that owned or operated the tanks at the site of the release that if they refuse to allow the owner operator to comply with the law then liability then transfers to them to do the cleanup and again it's a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:26
risk basic cleanup and so what is what are the mechanisms in place that if the guy next to the gas station that leaked has that spillage come over onto his property
to no fault of his own but the law is saying he is liable for it what are the safety mechanisms to stop him from being caught
Chair
Unverified
22:49
for it if he impedes or refused to allow the owner operator to actually do the cleanup and there are several mechanisms where we engage either current site owners who were not the responsible party or adjacent site owners anytime we do an investigation and we know that a property has been impacted we before we
put the requirement in the bill to actually provide notice which we will do now under this amendment we always carbon copied them to make sure that they were aware of the investigations that were going on at the site what we about the level of contamination what the proposed cleanup look like so if they wanted to have a voice in the process about the extent that the cleanup was done or the types of activities that might interfere with their use of the property they would have a role to play in that so what we've been trying to do is make sure that those property owners were engaged enough in the process to
where when the cleanup was approved they understand the need for it and we've done everything we could to in to reduce the interference with their use of their own property that was our way to make sure that the adjacent property owner or the current property owner would not refuse to allow the cleanup to be conducted this bill just says or proposes to say that even after we've done that and given them notice and they participated if they still refuse to allow this unacceptable level of contamination to exist in the
environment they will now be responsible for it and the department could take
Speaker 56
24:13
an enforcement action to require them to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:16
do the cleanup and what's the mechanisms for if there's a difference between AEDQ and the private property owner as far as the extent of the work that needs to be done, what's the, do they have to take it to court, is there an appeals process, or if there's an impasse, how does that private property owner have a right or, you know, a
way to argue against AEDQ's decision? The approval
Chair
Unverified
24:39
of a corrective action plan is actually an official decision of the director
that is ultimately appealable to the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. So if they don't like the level of the cleanup that we're proposing to approve or the way that that cleanup will occur, they can approve it to our commission. Decisions from our commission are appealable to Circuit Court. OK, thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 88
25:00
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Thank
Speaker 48
25:06
you, Mr. Chair. My question is, how would this affect what's going on with the natural gas industry, if any? because I do know that there are some storage tanks used both on, you know,
when they're fracking with the rainwater and everything, and then also afterwards I think there are some areas that may have storage tanks to hold waste or whatever the case may be, so if you could address that.
Chair
Unverified
25:29
The regulated storage tank bill only addresses storage tanks that are storing fuels, so it doesn't address those that are storing other types of waste material that are used for fracking. they're not addressed covered by this bill okay I just want to make sure thank you mr. chair
thank you any other questions okay thank you for the
presentation there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill representative Malone okay go ahead we'll move
back just a bit thank you mr. chairman
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
26:00
very quickly you said it only has to do with fuel or what did you say this only addresses the storage tank program itself
Speaker 56
26:07
only regulates tanks that are holding fuels does it say fuels in here because
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
26:11
I just see substance so I'm just curious I mean it doesn't really specify that so a
Chair
Unverified
26:21
substance is lots of different things it is a regulated substance and the definition of regulated substance which is not a part of these amendments talks about fuels we specifically don't regulate tanks that hold chemical products for instance for instance those things are not covered under this bill okay under the existing
Speaker 56
26:39
program defined somewhere it is defined in the statute regulated substances yes be happy to provide that to you okay thank you the question
is is regulated substance only fuel or are there other things
Linda Perry
Unverified
26:56
good morning ladies and gentlemen the committee speak up just a little bit closer please my name is Linda Perry I'm a branch manager for the regulated storage tanks division at the department regulated substance is defined in the enabling act of 1989 as petroleum at which is liquid at standard temperature and pressure it's a refined petroleum product or underground tanks hazards chemicals above ground tanks do not include the chemicals they are fuels only underground tanks under the federal and state program do include hazardous
chemicals could you maybe give me a couple of examples of what would be a regulated
Linda Perry
Unverified
27:38
substance substance stored in the underground tank gasoline diesel used oil new oils kerosene all all petroleum related things any refined petroleum product okay that I
think that's primarily what we regulate okay good all right that's good enough for me any other questions from the committee okay thank you for the presentation I don't think there's anybody to speak for or
against the bill so what's the pleasure of
the committee motion do pass any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye aye any opposed congratulations you passed your bill thank you chair I don't believe we have any other bills
here to run today so representative Westerman are you here yet okay a
representative link if you want to go to the end of the table and present to begin the presentation on House Bill 1312 last session I voted
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
28:59
for the fluoride bill and what I learned was that you can lead a horse to
water but if there's fluoride in water he may not drink it and this bill today of representative Westermans as I pull it up to read it myself again does not really make us make a decision on fluoride it's more of a decision on local control
and I think we have some folks here to kind of help with this as soon as I can get to it if
it mr. chairman sorry I'd like to have
mr. Steve Ware introduce himself and speak on this. Yes, you'll recognize. Just say your
Speaker 113
29:46
name and affiliation, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee. My name is Steve Ware. I'm the Operations Manager for Conway County Regional Water. I serve on the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Rural Water Association, which represents about 500 water and wastewater systems statewide. I'm here today to tell you that our Board of Directors, after visiting with our membership, has voted in
support of this bill my system elected many many years ago to introduce fluoride into our water system and we continue to do that today but it was by their choice and they have sustained that choice over a couple of other times during this period our board of directors and our member systems think that anytime that state government can afford the opportunity for the local citizenry to make some decisions on their own, especially when
it is related to their health, then that's a good thing. And that's basically what I want to bring to you today is that local control in most instances is an area that we ought to move more towards. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you for
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
30:58
the presentation. And I should have
said this at the beginning. I think the presentation of this bill set the standard so this is an issue is important but also well debated I don't think we need to limit debate
but I would ask committee members to keep your questions focused, people sign up to testify, keep your comments focused and on topic and relevant Representative Wilkins you're recognized for a question Thank
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
31:31
– does this bill really only affect cities that are using surface water? No,
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
31:42
Okay. Well, I know in eastern Arkansas, fluoride – there's enough fluoride naturally that they're not adding a lot of fluoride over there. In fact, in my county, I really couldn't find one that had to add fluoride. And my understanding is that it's present in the wells of, you know, sufficient amounts to meet the state standards now. So I was led to believe by some water
managers that it only really would affect people who are using surface water, such as out of lakes, rivers.
Speaker 113
32:23
for sure we are a surface water supply where I work we have a about around a point one five natural occurring residual of fluoride in the water and we increase that to try to maintain between a point seven and point eight residual but you
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
32:40
don't know about you know how well water I
Speaker 113
32:43
think every locale would be different those numbers might be slightly different well
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
32:49
my people in my County every one of them except one I didn't talk to who said
that this was just didn't affect us in that part of the
Speaker 113
33:05
world. That's the water managers over there. Do you agree with that statement? I do agree with that but having said that you know this particular bill you know not to debate the science of fluoridization and and the health impacts that it may or may not have I mean to me what we're looking at here with this bill as it's written is to
leave that decision to the local community or the local city or the local county and that is what my board is in
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
33:40
favor of so you think the board's order be able to vote to affect affect the health of children too, because I think we're going to hear testimony probably later on that this is a huge effect on children's teeth, their oral health, dental health, and so who on
them boards has the foresight to say that it's not needed there when you're affecting thousands of children? Well, I mean, I don't, you know, I don't think that
Speaker 113
34:10
anybody, any one person in particular can have that but I but I do know that that if you reduce this to a local level then more of the citizens or more of the consumers that we have are going to have some input into that decision whether I mean you may you
could even choose to have a election where all the qualified voters could vote to add fluoride or remove fluoride but this bill don't do that
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
34:39
does it don't have a vote for it no as
Speaker 113
34:42
it's written and it's also May I mean locality could choose not to do it at all thank you thank you
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
34:51
representative Wilkins Vice-Chair Murdoch you're recognized for question thank you
Speaker 26
34:55
chairman thank you for being here what is your name sir Steve Ware mr. Ware thank you for being
here as you take this into account and you put this in the local hands have you do you do you not understand that it's not totally local because there are connections of water where water flows through other contiguous is a contiguous nature of it so this is not local it won't simply be designated one from the other it will be continuous do you understand that yes that's true so in certain circumstances yes so if you understand that then if I make a decision in this county then that will therefore affect the next county possibly
my decision of how we fluorate the water or not or whatever case may be so how How does that maintain integrity of the legislation, if that can possibly happen?
Speaker 113
35:46
I can give you an example of what we did in our county. Originally, when the Regional Water District was formed, we purchased the City of Moralton water system. And the City of Moralton had had a vote in years past to approve the addition of floridization
into the water supply. And after we parsed it, we started expanding countywide, taking water to other areas that have not had water. And when we did that, then we had a subsequent vote which passed, which allowed us to do that. And that's what stands in place today. Right. But I think you're going to hear a testimony
Speaker 26
36:29
of the independent authority of a community, that it's going to hamper the next community's ability to do that just by virtue of the flow of the water.
Speaker 113
36:40
And there are consecutive systems that cross county lines. I can think of several around the state of Arkansas where that would be an issue. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hammer. What does
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:55
it take to be a board member on a
Speaker 113
36:59
water board? Different ones are set up different ways. Mine is a regional water distribution district, and our board members are elected countywide, countywide election. And who elects them?
Every registered voter is eligible to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:13
vote. So is it fair to say, is it fair or is it not fair to say that the majority of the water boards in the state are elected by their citizenry to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:27
about those water boards? I think that's a correct statement overall. Okay, so what this bill basically does is releasing control of the decisions about that water system to the local board to make decisions as to the fluorination of those water levels?
Yes, as it's written. Okay. What about any attempts to control the cost of providing water by eliminating fluoride from the water and it being just based on a cost-saving measure? Can you speak to that concern? As
Speaker 113
38:02
far as the cost goes? Yes, sir. There are different methods of delivering fluoride to the water. In my particular system, we use hydrofluorosilic acid that we introduce into the water.
Our cost to do that is roughly about 1.5 cents per 1,000 gallons of water. Okay, so what does
Speaker 18
38:25
it cost you a year to put fluorination in your water system? Oh, a
Speaker 113
38:30
billion gallons. We can do the math there. We usually produce a little over a billion gallons a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:39
year. So what I'm leading up to is cost a reason for a system not to put fluorination in their water?
Speaker 112
38:48
In our situation, my system and the ones that I'm familiar with, no. Okay. All
right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hammer.
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
39:03
Representative Ferguson. Is it safe to say that on these water boards there would possibly be no one that had any public health or nursing or dentists or doctors or anyone with any public health knowledge? I would
Speaker 113
39:16
say overall statewide it would be rare to have that type of person on the water board.
Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Overby, you're recognized
for a question. My understanding of this bill is
that now the water companies, they do get state money, right? Some do. But you're wanting to take all of the rule from the water department out of state hands, right? To local control.
Speaker 113
39:57
Yes, and for example, in relation to state money, most of the state monies that water systems utilize are the SRF funds, which actually come from the U.S. government. Right. So if you
take that out of their hands, then you can quit using their money maybe? I would love to
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hank Wilkins, you're
Speaker 154
40:35
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of my questions have been asked by representatives Overby and Ferguson, but I did want to go back to one issue or two issues. One, medical personnel, did I hear your testimony correctly that you said that it would be unusual to have dentists or nurses on various boards, water boards?
Speaker 113
41:04
That's been my experience in 27 years. My system in 27 years, we've never had a doctor or a health care
Speaker 156
41:14
professional serve on our board. All right. And you're
Speaker 154
41:18
here testifying for this bill, but you all do have fluoride in the water there in your community. have you made attempts to change
Speaker 113
41:28
that? There was approximately, I guess, about seven or eight years ago, there was a group locally that was against fluoridization,
and there was a vote locally, and they voted to continue utilizing fluoride. All right. And
Speaker 154
41:46
then my final question, when it is an independent company, you believe they should have the authority to make that decision for the citizens? I'm not
Speaker 124
41:58
sure I understand. Are you talking about a for-profit utility as
Speaker 113
42:04
opposed to publicly owned? Yes. No, if it's a for-profit utility, I wouldn't agree with that.
But now I'm only aware, and there's others in the room that can probably answer the question better than I am. but in the water utility business, I think there's only one or two systems in the state that is
Speaker 154
42:27
operated by a for-profit corporation. All right. Well, certainly it doesn't make that distinction in the bill here, and I just wanted to call that to the committee's attention. It says company or corporation. It does not specify that.
So thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you,
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
42:51
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Ludding. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we discussed this two years ago, it was made clear that Delta Dental is providing grants to communities to pay for the fluoridation. Is that correct? That's the
Speaker 113
43:04
way I understood it, yes. Okay. So there's no cost to the communities for doing this? It's my understanding they formed a committee that reviewed applications from different systems that were required under two years ago's legislation, and then they were funded
as the results of whatever that committee's determination was. Thank you.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
43:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Harris. Representative Link, I just got a question, a couple questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do school boards have teachers on their school board?
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
43:38
I don't think I could speak for every school board. I don't know of any in my local area
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
43:44
that does they don't, they're not allowed to
I think that goes back to my point the fact that, you know, rural communities there's smart people that live in rural communities that can make these decisions for the people in their communities and I would, do you agree that, you know, I'm from a rural community I have a college education and on our water board we had we had the Fayetteville city chief the chief of police that was on that water board would you believe that he could make the decision
for the community rather to put fluoride in the water or not would you
Speaker 113
44:25
agree with that on the whole I would agree with that and and for the reason that the communication between the local citizenry and a local official where there's a water board fire chief police chief mayor it happens on a lot more frequent occurrences than it would be from the citizenry from my locale matter of fact I'm I think I know excuse me Bruce is here there are a couple of us here today from my locale but but my
board is able to communicate directly with the citizens on a very frequent basis and that that allows the communication to take place I just want to be clear that
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
45:06
people in rural communities are smart we choose to live in the rural communities because we don't want to live in big cities thank you welcome representative
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
45:23
Ferguson I just have a question I think you're headed down a difficult path when you start taking control for public
health issues away from Public Health Department there's there are some things that need to be done at the state level I mean would you next want to not have seat belts or not have infant
seats I mean I'm trying to understand why you would think that public health
Speaker 113
45:50
issues should be controlled at a local level I personally don't think that all public health issues should be controlled at the local level for example uh chlorination of water has saved more lives than uh probably any antibiotic
that has ever been put and so in in critical health issues like that i i am for uh the things that and there's a reason why epa doesn't mandate uh the use of fluoride uh you know epa does mandate the use of a disinfection agent in the public water supplies to prevent the cholera epidemics and things like we had hundreds of years ago so you know
there are health issues that are all health issues are not equal and and the ones that are less likely to cause very severe illness then I think
Speaker 112
46:47
local control has a place okay thank you we'll talk we got a few
more people signed up and we'll try to wrap up the questions and then move into the public testimony because there are several people signed up representative Hank Wilkins thank you
Speaker 154
47:06
Mr. Chairman I'll be very brief I know you're trying to move us forward I just want to correct something that was said a few moments ago in your testimony you You said that there are no educators on school boards. I didn't say that. You agreed with the question that Representative Harris asked you. I have no idea. Okay. Well, let me just tell you so that the representative and you will both know that, in fact, I know
of a number of teachers and administrators who are on school boards in the state of Arkansas, they may not be on the school board in the district in which they work just for clarification thank you mr chairman thank you
representative malone thank you mr chairman just very quickly
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
47:57
up until and representative lincoln i guess i'll phrase this as wouldn't you agree but up until two years ago when this mandate was put in each local water authority had the control over their
own water correct wouldn't you agree i would agree with that yes okay so to say and just to uh representative ferguson's point no no and no disrespect here but i mean up until two years ago the look they've been under local control not under the health department and it seems to be working just fine up until two years ago when
Speaker 102
48:30
a mandate was passed correct that's right okay representative mayberry
Speaker 175
48:39
Representative Malone just asked my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Representative
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:47
Hammer. Cut through the chase. Are we talking about floor nation or are we talking about local control in this
Speaker 78
49:01
bill? This is a local control bill. Thank you. Representative Ward. Let's answer my question because I was going to ask Representative Link. He stated earlier that he was in support of this bill two years ago, and I just simply wanted to know what may have changed his mind now that he think that we need to write new legislation to
correct what happened two years ago. Were there any one in your district that actually came to you and said that this was a bad deal that we passed out a committee two years ago?
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
49:27
Representative Ward there's a lot of there's a lot of
people in my district came to me just hammering fluoride of which I don't necessarily agree or disagree you know in other words my and I would I would tell them the same thing this debate is not about fluoride because I voted for fluoride I personally don't think it is
the the the evil chemical that so many people think now we're kind of getting into the fluoride thing but you asked my history of it when we started talking about the fact that my local water folks were angry that I dictated something they had to put in the water that they didn't want to put in the water and ask why didn't we leave that to local control that's when I became a supporter of this idea that Representative Westerman is here with now I'm gonna let him take my seat here in a moment but that's when I became on board with the idea of local control and that's why I'm I'm for this
bill because of that I don't
Speaker 77
50:20
have I personally don't have a problem with fluoride thank you can I have
Speaker 78
50:25
one other question please mr. Ware you stated earlier that also there was about 500 members of your association that was in that particular association and you all took a vote to actually to limit the fluoridation and all. Out of the 500 utilities company, a water association that you represent, what percentage actually took a vote and agreed with this particular part of this piece of
Speaker 113
50:49
legislation? Well, we operate very similar to the legislature. We have the state is divided up into eight districts. Each district elects two members to Represent them on the board of directors of Arkansas rural water and so we have 16 voting members on our board And that that's the vote that I
Speaker 78
51:10
was referring to So the 16 there was an anonymous vote of the Yes, thank
you. Thanks miss chair. Thank you representative word
That is all the questions from the committee representative Westerman. Your timing is impeccable. So Questions are over presentations done Do you have anything you'd like to add, and then
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
51:34
we'll move into testimony for and against. I'm sure Representative Link did an excellent job presenting the bill. I apologize for not being here to hear all the testimony. I was running another bill in another committee. I believe we have some additional water systems operators here that, if we have time, could speak for the bill.
I'm not quite sure Well, I'll tell you what Just out of deference to the sponsor If you would like to say a few words We have heard a significant amount of testimony So if you'd like to just say a few words
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
52:15
And then we'll move into people to speak for and against Okay Again, the bill is a simple bill It's basically returning control of water systems To the local authority
If I had been here to open for the bill, I would have told you that I have no personal issues with fluoride. I have four children. We gave them all fluoride tablets. We brushed their teeth with toothpaste with fluoride in it as soon as they had teeth. And I don't believe this bill is specifically about fluoride. This bill is about local control. We created a state mandate that I believe is unfair back in 2011, and I would like to return control back to the local water districts
Speaker 185
52:54
and the local authorities okay fair enough sir
i if you state your name and title and
Speaker 186
53:04
say a few words yes mr chairman members of the committee my name is renee fonceker
Renee Fonceker
Unverified
53:09
i'm water operator with carol boone water dish district and business manager eureka springs arkansas i stand alone before this committee today but i carry the voices of many who have asked me to represent them in this meeting today. Those voices come from citizens of our community and our district that we serve, also members
of local city councils, water districts, and Mr. Andy Anderson, who is Chairman of the board of our new Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority called several water districts to meeting last January in Harrison, Arkansas. Mr. Kelly Link and Mr. David Branscombe attended some of those meetings where we discussed
concerns and financial burdens that Act 197 placed upon small water districts. There were three areas of concern, financial, location, and the water usage, and personal choice. Many citizens of our district have expressed their opinions on personal choice, and they feel that their local voices have either been overridden and some of their personal choices
cast aside. On June 11th, Resolution 600 was passed by Eureka Springs City Council in a formal protest to oppose the fluoridation of city water supplies. On July 10th, Carol Boone Water District was served with a letter of constructive notice to all water operators, board members, and attorneys. I'm not an attorney, and I don't know the merits of the things that this letter addresses,
but I do know it's additional financial costs for our attorney to answer these particular questions that our citizens have. I'd like to start first also that most people feel that the personal choice should be conducted at the ballot box. I'd like to go and speak on the second area of concern that we discussed
at these meetings in Harrison was the location of our water districts and water usage. Most of our areas that we serve are agricultural, very rural. We have a large poultry industry, cattle, and a lot of the smaller districts feel that the cost of implementing fluoridation is put upon the water district, but a lot of this water usage will never reach human consumption as the legislature had intended in our districts, and just results in additional
financial cost to the small water districts the major and the top concern that we discussed during these meetings were financial and that was the cost of implementation the cost of which was fell woefully short in our instance the cost of maintenance which is not only very costly but repetitive because of corrosive nature of fluoride product.
Speaker 189
56:49
The next thing I'd like to speak about in the cost of the
Renee Fonceker
Unverified
56:54
implementation was some of the things Carol Boone Water District experienced. Back in January of 2012, our project engineer Jim Vedder, who was dealing with Delta Dental, It advised me that they were trying to cut down the scope of our buildings. We received our first review plans a couple weeks later, and sure enough, they had reduced the square footage on our buildings, eliminating a second story from our west plant fluoride
feed station, and on our east plant, removed the mezzanine level from our buildings. only did they reduce the square footage in the footprint of our buildings but also in the cost of the buildings. Our engineers had estimated that it would be $200 a square foot for construction where Delta Dental was agreeable to pay half that price at $100 a square foot. There were also certain factors that they denied that were included for operator safety.
Some of those areas that they denied also were online automatic feed analyzers that we could hook up to our SCADA controls and bring all that information into our plants so our operators could have control over the system. With Carol Boone, we have nine operators who work five different shifts a week.
So that doesn't leave a whole lot of personnel to cover extra duties that fluoridation would incur. Now, after all these things were denied, I spoke on February the 24th of last year with Sarah Wire, who is a reporter with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. She told me that she had spoke with Delta Dental and that the reason they were cutting
back on the scope of our project was they were trying to spread the money that was allocated around to cover all the water
districts. Sir, I'm going to stop you for just a moment and say that I've messed up a little bit. I thought you were coming to assist Representative Westerman with his testimony. clearly speaking against the bill or for the bill and that's okay but two things one in the interest of time if you could limit your discussion more to the topic to the actual bill but then also I just want to be careful about
repeating things that other people said be it true or not it's a little bit of what can often fall under hearsay and if you would just limit your discussion to the bill and what it does in the interest
Speaker 189
59:52
of time that would be helpful Yes, sir. I'll go ahead and skip what I was intended to cover and just make a closing statement then.
Renee Fonceker
Unverified
1:00:03
Thank you. Well, I'd just like to ask everyone in this committee to support
Speaker 189
1:00:07
Representative Westerman's bill and return that local decision making to the citizens and water districts,
Renee Fonceker
Unverified
1:00:15
once again could have a local decision and decide what is right and best for their own entities. I thank you. Okay. Thank you for
your testimony. Representative Wardlaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:00:32
a motion, limit debate, 10 minutes to each side. Okay. Sir,
if you don't mind, could you step away from the table while we do this and then let's work through the process here?
Thank you. There's a motion to limit debate, 10
minutes on each side. Okay. It is a non-debatable motion, so we will have a vote to limit debate, 10 minutes each side. That
includes closing for the bill on behalf of the sponsor. So all in favor to limit debate 10 minutes on each side, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Debate has been limited.
Phil will keep time with the clock, and we'll move through our list, which I have in front of me. We'll start out speaking against the bill. Melissa Massingale with Delta Dental. Okay. Dr. Thompson and Melissa Massingale. If you all join us at the end of the table, you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. and they have a handout Mr. Price will distribute that
and the clock just so everybody knows he's pretty we limit debate but he's pretty generous with the clock so we haven't started yet and once everybody gets settled and start talking we'll hit the button Mr. Chair it might be in your interest to wait until the handouts are out so everybody's focused but I appreciate the urgency Representative Link you're recognized perhaps a silly question
Speaker 12
1:02:17
but at this point am I still presenting the bill or am I
able to vote and ask questions I think since Representative Westrom is here you can assume your regular position thank you Thank you. Reminders? Yeah. That's good.
I think we're probably ready to roll. So Ms. Massingale, Dr. Thompson, y'all are recognized to speak against the bill. Thank
Speaker 202
1:04:15
you, Mr. Chair. I'm Dr. Joe Thompson, Director of the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement and Surgeon General for
Speaker 203
1:04:20
the state. I wish I was here in a supportive role, but I am here to speak against this bill. I think it was discussed earlier. this is largely not about fluoride but it's about whether you have the option
for state control versus local control. I would vehemently disagree that this is not a critical medical issue. This is one of the major causes for caries or cavities in kids teeth. What led to passage of this bill was a study from communities in this state where communities that did not have fluoride had twice as many cavities in their kindergarten aged kids as those communities that did have fluoride in their water and what was stated earlier that there was not a problem was not true we had three of the largest cities
in the United States that did not fluoridate their water along with a number of smaller communities which did not fluoridate their water which led to us having a much higher rate of dental disease in our kids in our state for which most of the dental care is paid for through the our kids program or through private dental insurance so this is not a local control issue or a personal choice issue this is a major public health issue it has major clinical impact on children in our state that we documented were having problems
we had major cities under local control choose not to follow the evidence I want to be clear I am for local control and local experimentation when we don't know what to do totally because that's how we learn what to do but the Center for Disease Control said fluoridation in the 20th century was one of the ten most important public health achievements nationwide and we had three of the largest communities in our state choose not to fluoridate their water and their kids had twice as many cavities and we paid for it through our insurance
programs it's not right so we passed this bill with your support your colleagues support in the previous session and I think it is still the right public policy to repeal a statewide requirement would be bad public policy for the health and the financial well-being of our state so with that let me close and hand it I would say what was said earlier and Miss Massingill is with Delta Dental who in the last session did step up with financial resources to assist local communities I will state I think they
were somewhat taken advantage of by some local communities you heard about them refusing to put on a second floor or a mezzanine of a building that was going to house what is a relatively small fluoridation operation. I think they were disadvantaged by their generosity, and I think there's a great deal of energy here that's being used to essentially assert a political issue of local control over good public policy for the citizens' health of the state of Arkansas. Thank you, Dr. Thompson.
Melissa Massengill
Unverified
1:07:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Melissa Massengill. I am the Director
Speaker 207
1:07:20
of Government Relations for Delta Dental of Arkansas and the Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation. As you've heard, Delta Dental was asked to get involved with the fluoridation law in 2011, back during the last legislative session. And what really appealed to us is that many of you may know that our mission, corporately
and philanthropically, is to improve the oral health of our Kansans. And we saw the opportunity to provide our resources to support the bill, knowing that in previous attempts to pass statewide fluoride legislation failed because of the financial burden that it would impose on local communities. We saw this as an opportunity for us to use our resources and to remove that financial obligation from communities and to do the right thing for Arkansas residents.
One of the real concerns that we have is that any partial repeal of Act 197 will completely remove the guarantee of financing by Delta Dental of Arkansas and its foundation. act 197 completely intact the communities who desperately want and need community fluoridated water will not have the recent resources to implement it what I'd like for you to know just briefly is that since act 197
was passed 28 of the 35 water systems affected under act 197 have received approved grants grants through the Delta General of Arkansas Foundation five of those began implementing fluoridated water in 2011 excuse me 2012 11 grants are in line to begin their implementation 11 communities and 12 grants are pending approval by the Arkansas Department of Health those left
four of the grants remaining the grants have expired because of lack of activity or lack of information to water systems have not applied at all and one water system withdrew so out of the 35 28 have enthusiastically submitted grant applications and have received approved funding by Delta Dental of Arkansas thank you thank you
we've used about five minutes of the 10 so members have
some questions if you'll make them quick representative Butch Wilkins
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:10:00
dr. Thompson if I understood you right you said that the addition of fluoride will make a profound causes a profound act on the dental health of children what we found from looking at two communities one that
Speaker 202
1:10:12
did and one that did not fluoridate water and the reason
Speaker 203
1:10:15
for the difference was fluoride there was a 50 percent reduction in cavities in the community that had fluoride in its water thank you sir thank you representative hammer dr. Thompson I was just wondering
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:10:33
if you can think of any other medical issue that is left up
to local control the way in which floor nation previously before the act was passed into law last time is there any other issue
Speaker 203
1:10:46
out there medically there are many aspects of health care delivery that are subject to local referral patterns and so forth like that but there are several public health issues that supersede the local control immunizations for school-aged kids car seats seat belts fluoride in my opinion are all major causes and the issue is in local control people don't
think something bad is going to happen to them so that's why you need a statewide umbrella over the top of that from a public health perspective we don't allow local control for restaurant inspection we don't allow local control for septic tank inspection. You have a statewide policy that protects the public's
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:27
health and that's afforded to every citizen in the state. Okay and what were the first issues you mentioned that are not
Speaker 211
1:11:35
regulated by a overall state policy? Aspects of local hospital which
Speaker 203
1:11:38
physicians can be can have admitting privileges and other things in local hospital more on the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:45
health care side not on the public health side. And who
Speaker 211
1:11:48
Who controls those decisions? The local hospital and its privileging committee.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:51
Okay. Their boards? Yes. Okay. And I wanted to ask you a question if you're prepared to answer about the letter we got from Delta Dental, but I didn't see your name on it. So are you prepared to answer a question about that? Yes.
Quickly, if you don't mind. Sure. Third page says that on the basis of Act 197,
that if we pass these two bills, they're going to rob hundreds of thousands of Arkansas from benefits of local fluorination water, unravel, et cetera, et cetera. That statement is based on the assumption that the local boards that we would release
control back to would not continue fluorinating
Speaker 207
1:12:31
their water. Is that correct? That is partially correct, and also that communities would not have the financial resources to pursue implementing public fluoridated water and is that because
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:43
Delta Dental is going to stop funding them
Speaker 207
1:12:46
the funding mechanism available now is under Act 197 that's the only place that exists the funding mechanism outside of the act does not exist okay so you're saying
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:56
by law Delta wouldn't be able to continue to fund not by choice that Delta wouldn't be able to
Speaker 207
1:13:02
continue to fund under Act 197 by law they wouldn't be able to so essentially when we were When we agreed to the commitment, it was largely due to our ability to move the needle for
the state of Arkansas by being able to use our resources to spread fluoridation across the state. As Vice Chair Murdoch expressed a little bit earlier, in individually fluoridating community one at a time, it's exponentially more expensive and becomes much more complex. I'm not saying that Delta wouldn't help other communities outside of Act 197, but the cost would grow, and we would have to review and reconsider
and get re-approval by our board. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. And we had two other people signed up,
Link and Ritchie, but our time has exhausted. So all 10 minutes was used speaking against the bill. We'll move into Testimony 4. There are three people signed up to speak for, That will be limited to 10 minutes. Also keeping in mind that Representative Westerman, I'm sure, would like a time reserved to close, so I would encourage the people signed up to speak for to limit your comments to around a minute.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:14:16
Representative Westerman. I had two other presenters here who didn't have an opportunity to present, so I would ask that they could speak for the bill during
this time. Okay. If you'll bring me those names up here real quick, we'll do them after. That reinforces my admonition. We've got 10 minutes. But the three people on the list, we'll let you go first since you were signed up, but please keep it about a minute if you can. Mr. Joe Walls.
Joe Walls
Unverified
1:14:53
My name is Joe Walls. I'm a retired water operator and wastewater operator. I have a degree in biology, and I'm the state director for water operations for Secure Arkansas. I'd like to point out a few things that I've heard here today. On the water boards and local control, most water boards have a licensed water operator on those boards.
So these people are trained in fluoridation, the methods, and everything. And when these situations come up, these communities, every situation that I've ever seen, they bring in the local dentists, doctors. You know, local communities operate with due diligence when they're trying to decide whether to fluoridate or not. It's not just whether we do or we don't, you know. So there is a science that comes down on both sides of this issue,
and I know this issue today is not about fluoridation, good, bad, whatever, but it's a very complicated issue, and it needs to be taken back to local control so it can be because each community is different. You know, say in Hot Springs, they have more citizens that are affected by fluoride in the water. Fluoride affects people that are on kidney dialysis It affects older people in different ways that infects the younger community
So you have to look at those situations? So it comes down to local control if that is better for that community or that area and as in the problem of water going to Different areas, you know this affects people like in Fort Smith If they want to sell their water to people in Oklahoma that don't Florida they can't now you know once they start fluoridating they're not going to be able to do that people at these state lines that at one time were able to sell water to people that didn't fluoridate won't be able to do it so it's kind of goes both ways on
that you know and you know most water districts are combined to general areas counties you know it does cross over somewhat but generally when you have a vote on one of these things you get most of the people that are affected and you are able to get a good representative vote and I only had a minute but yes thank you yeah I just want to close and thank y'all for letting
me say my spiel okay thank you for your testimony Gabriel Reardon you'll
Gabrielle Reardon
Unverified
1:17:48
be recognize to speak for the bill this is my red carpet debut so I hope I'm dressed appropriately my name is Gabrielle Reardon I live in Hot Springs Village a retirement community of approximately 14,000 senior citizens many of whom are on their third set of teeth dentures and or implants and this
raises the question about what benefit would this have to our community in our community we only have approximately 800 children which is about 5.7 percent they have the ability to brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste and or take fluoride tablets and as a reminder the Arkansas Health Department held our community hostage when their permit for the so urgently needed expansion of the
Village Water Plant would only be granted if the POA would commit to fluoridating our drinking water. This bill, as I understand it, is about choice. A choice we, as Hot Springs Village residents, are entitled to. If fluoride is added to our water, that choice is taken away. I ask you, how happy would you be if you had no choice in the food that you eat every day you
choose what you eat each and every day it is not a state mandate water is essential to all human life we can't live without it and we deserve the right to drink pure water with no added chemical hazards if we want fluoride we know where to get it as individuals we are all unique and we have different health requirements if we add more chemicals to our water it just creates something else for us to have to work around not to mention the unnecessary
expense to our community we are an elderly community and if we have not yet learned to take care of our teeth we ain't ever gonna learn again it's choice a personal responsibility we may be old but we ain't stupid okay please give us the choice we are responsible educated citizens we do not need or want fluoride assistance we know where to find it and if we choose to if we choose to take it please consider our rights as individuals and not hold us
hostage to more chemical assault and remember no one
Speaker 222
1:20:19
ever died from a chemical or drug deficiency thank you okay thank you for your testimony you did very
well in your debut I remember to say I think it may have been Mike Huckabee I don't remember but he said blessed are the brief for they shall be invited back we should we should start every committee meeting with that and my jokes don't come out of the time only one more person and then the representative Westerman would you have something to say I just wanted to make sure
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:20:48
I had a couple of minutes you
MR. You do. Yeah. We are – yes. Ms. Nancy Emmons, if you will make your comments on the
bill, you'll be recognized, and then we'll have – we've got about a balance of five minutes remaining
Nancy Emmons
Unverified
1:21:10
right now, Representative Westerman. MS. My name is Nancy Emmons, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
Speaker 227
1:21:15
thank each one of you for listening to us today. I'm here to speak for Representative Westerman's bill and I've heard the conversation about
each community should have the right to decide whether they want to fluoride their water or not. Act 197 when it was passed really has created a big problem for the village. Our water permit was held up. We wanted to, we have to expand our water system because the village is growing. And you have to have water to have life and sustain life.
And each time that we applied for our water permit, it was denied. And it kept being put off and put off. And the question was, have you taken a grant out with Delta Dental? we would apply. Have you taken a grant out with Delta Dental? And our water expansion permit was denied and denied and denied.
We feel in the village, and I speak for many, many people in the village, that our water system should be turned back to other people, and I think that the Act 197 should be dismantled because this is what happens when you, the Arkansas Health Department is the one who held our permit up. And you were the ones who gave them the authority to hold that permit up, possibly thinking, doing the right thing.
But what has happened, it has taken control away from the cities until we got that water expansion. But let me say this, I want to read to you a letter just very briefly, Chairman. Please clarify, and this came from the Health Department, please clarify how and when Hot Springs Village intends to plan to compliance with Act 197 of 2011, an act to provide for certain water systems to maintain a level of fluoride to prevent tooth decay and other purposes.
We are not aware if Hot Springs Village has applied for funding from Delta Dental. A copy of the application is enclosed. And until we agreed to sign that grant, we could not have our water expanded. And I really want you to think about that. And Representative Melona, I believe she is correct. It should go back to the communities and not. They've done very well up until the last two years.
And so we ask, as citizens in Arkansas, I mean, all over Arkansas, the citizens are really concerned about this. We ask you to dismantle this 197, Act 197.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Representative Love, do you have a question for whom? For whom? Oh, well,
Ms. Simmons left. I have a question
for her, though. No, that's okay, ma'am. That's fine. Okay. We've got about a balance
of about three minutes remaining.
Representative Westerman, if you'd like to bring Mr. Phil Meisner and Jerry Thompson to the end of the table. They
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:24:51
assured me they would be brief. Yeah. I
Speaker 230
1:24:55
am. I'm Jerry Thompson, Highway 63 Water. I had a question for the committee, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm sorry, sir, but
if you could just limit your testimony. Sir, please, just testify on the bill. Don't ask questions.
Speaker 230
1:25:09
I am. There's five water companies in the county I live in where our office is at.
Our water company is the only one mandated to start pumping fluoride. And I understand. I'm not talking bad about fluoride. I'm not talking good about fluoride. But this fluoride is so fantastic. And this law bill says it's a statewide fluoride program. Well, it's not a statewide fluoride program. It's over 5,000 population. And my board tells me that if more people is going to pump it, these other five water companies are going to pump it. And we're not going to be told that we have to get a grant from Delta General because we've got the money we want to pump it.
but what I'm asking y'all y'all the lady it said a while ago we might be dumb old redneck from down south Arkansas but we're not representative of all the people in the state of Arkansas and what we want to do is run our water system and people leave us alone we got a good water system we sent out a CCR report every year to our people we don't hide nothing and if people want fluoride they can get fluoride
but don't you know we're not doctors don't ask us to doctor your kids teeth we're dumb old water operators from south arkansas when you get the doctoring people's teeth what if we put too much fluoride in they fall out who you gonna be after the water operators we're responsible thank you
sir thank you for your testimony uh jerry or i'm sorry maybe phil
Speaker 215
1:26:47
meisner Mr. Chairman and committee I appreciate the opportunity to say something
I'll be quick I'm Phil Meissner and I'm the manager of Washington Chapel Water and Pine Bluff and our people, when this law passed two years ago, I had numerous upon numerous calls asking how come they didn't have the opportunity to vote whether they wanted it or not and I told them, you know, if the The legislator voted it in, and then when this bill come up, I've had the same people tell me that they definitely wanted this bill to pass, and Washington Chapel Water is definitely
behind it. We feel like that the people should have the right to decide what they want added to their drinking water, other than keeping it pure with chlorine
Speaker 132
1:27:31
and such. Okay. That's all I've got to say. Good testimony. Representative Westerman, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, Mr.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:27:40
Chairman. Committee, it was stated earlier in the testimony against the bill that talking about good public policy, and I will propose to you that local control is a public policy issue.
It's something we should be concerned with. Mention was made of Hot Springs Village a couple of times. That's no secret. That's my district. I represent Hot Springs Village. I proudly represent them. It's the largest retirement community in the country. It's a huge economic impact to the area, and the retirement industry alone is a huge economic impact. In my opinion, we don't want to do anything to adversely affect the ability to attract retirees to Hot Springs Village or any place else in Arkansas.
I heard that if I understood the testimony from Delta Dental that they basically have an all-or-nothing proposal, Basically, without a mandate, they will take their marbles and go home. That hardly sounds philanthropic or in the best interest of children to me. You know, smoking has been proven by scientific study after scientific study that it's bad for your health. There's no doubt that if we outlawed smoking and it worked, that it would cost the state less money.
but I use that as an illustration to show that we can't be mandating everything, whether it's good public health policy or not. We just can't simply make those kind of mandates. Removing the mandate would not prevent anyone from fluoridating if they chose to do so or if they were convinced or incentivized to do so. All this bill asks is to return control to the local communities, and I ask you for a good vote. Thank you for the presentation and testimony.
Time has expired, so what is the pleasure of the committee? We have a motion due passed by Representative Meeks. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. If not, we'll vote on the motion due passed. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. chair rules the no's have it okay thank mr. price call a roll representative
Speaker 237
1:30:13
word representative Butch Wilkins representative Perry representative Perry representative Malone representative Hank Wilkins representative Hank Wilkins representative letting representative love
representative link representative Harris representative wardlaw representative hammer representative branscom representative meeks representative mayberry representative overby
representative richie Representative Womack Representative Ferguson Vice Chair Murdoch Chair Burroughs Sorry Representative Westerman,
you failed to pass your bill Thank
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:31:39
you Mr. Chairman and thank you committee for listening to my
bill I don't believe we have any other business to come before the committee So whatever special orders we set for Thursday, we'll have them on Thursday.
Check your agenda. We'll stand adjourned until Thursday, 10 a.m.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Burris Chair
Unverified
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 22
Speaker 26
Representative Fredrick J. Love Chair
Unverified
Representative Over
Unverified
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 47
Speaker 48
Karen Bassett
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 56
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 69
Speaker 72
Speaker 78
Speaker 81
Speaker 79
Speaker 44
Speaker 92
Speaker 88
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Linda Perry
Unverified
Speaker 113
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 116
Speaker 32
Speaker 112
Speaker 18
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Betty Overbey Chair
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 154
Speaker 156
Speaker 124
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 175
Speaker 77
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 186
Renee Fonceker
Unverified
Speaker 189
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Melissa Massengill
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 211
Joe Walls
Unverified
Gabrielle Reardon
Unverified
Speaker 222
Nancy Emmons
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 230
Speaker 215
Speaker 132
Speaker 237