Re: your April 23 front-page article "Water rate increases expected to continue."

The article enumerates a few of the reasons we're seeing water-rate increases from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, but it leaves out one reason that is drenched in deception.

Contrary to numerous statements made in the media that the Met was mandated to fluoridate our water supplies by Assembly Bill 733, the Met was not in fact mandated because it did not meet the state's criteria to be mandated: Only those water districts with 10,000 or more connections were mandated. Furthermore, those qualifying districts were required to fluoridate if and only if funding was made available by third-party funders, not ratepayers. If funding was not available, fluoridation didn't have to begin and it could even be halted, per AB733, if funding ceased.

The fact of the matter is that the Met volunteered to fluoridate our water supplies after seven county health directors requested it do so, allegedly for the sake of "efficiency." Once the Met made the decision to voluntarily fluoridate the water it sells to 26 member agencies, it drowned the funding mechanism provided by AB733. The financial consequence to the public is that infrastructure, operations and maintenance costs that were supposed to be funded by outside parties are now being passed on to ratepayers, in violation of the legislative intent of AB733. Any water district that was mandated to fluoridate had to accurately track its costs, so that those costs could be appropriately funded. Despite AB733's clear provisions to the contrary, the Met is claiming fluoridation costs are "treatment costs" and using accounting tricks to render costs secret that were intended by our legislators to be identified accurately.

What does this mean to the public? It means we got the old "bait and switch" con job done to us. Now, if the fluoridationists' plan goes as intended, the public will be on the hook for something it has not agreed to fund — a clear violation of Proposition 218, which requires all new taxes, assessments and fees be subject to a vote and winning by two-thirds. Fluoridationists have always known that California voters overwhelmingly defeat fluoridation proposals at the polls, so promising outside funding was instrumental in getting agreement to pass a law mandating the highly controversial "health" policy.

When the county health directors got the Met to agree to fluoridate voluntarily, they knew they were doing an end run around the law, an underhanded and deceitful move that created huge cost savings for the community of powerful political interests pushing the harmful policy.

A newspaper worth its ink would investigate how the fluoridationists persuaded the Met to shift fluoridation costs to the public by misidentifying them as treatment costs. That same paper might also investigate how fluoridation can continue when it has been concluded by the National Research Council's report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards," that fluoridation is unprotective of health. How can any public- health official continue to justify artificial water fluoridation when the amount of fluoride a baby can safely consume is zero? Water should be safe for all population subgroups, as provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Bottom line: The Met was not mandated to fluoridate and, by law, fluoridation costs were not supposed to be passed on to the ratepayers.

Whether you're under the impression fluoride is a cavity-fighting hero or recognize hydrofluosilicic acid (the substance used to fluoridate 92 percent of municipalities that fluoridate) as the toxic, hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry it is, the public shouldn't be duped by this unlawful funding scheme. When your local water company tries to pass on the costs to you, demand that misidentified fluoridation costs, masquerading as treatment costs, be deducted and paid for by the parties promoting this insane policy that makes the public drinking water supply a disposal site for hazardous waste produced by polluters as far away as China.

— Nicole Johnson lives in Oak Park.