It's a done deal as far as the authorities at the various water boards are concerned. Beginning October 7, or as soon thereafter as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) can manage it, the water pouring through Topanga's taps will be treated with fluoride.

Whether one considers that event a poisoning of the public water supply or a victory for public health, one question remains: Who, exactly, decided to tamper with the content of Topanga's water? Did Topangans get anything to say about it? How about anyone Topangans elected to represent them?

The latter questions are relatively easy to answer: At no time in the years-long process that led to the decision to begin fluoridating Topanga's water supply did Topangans get an opportunity to weigh in on the choice.

True, those who somehow got word of a poorly publicized MWD meeting held on August 20, were allowed to venture downtown for their three minutes of public comment time. But the actual decision to fluoridate had already been made years earlier, and no decisionmaker was there to represent Topanga at the time the MWD board cast its decisive ballot.

No Referendum

The lack of community participation in the process is all the more ironic in light of Section 12814 of the Public Utility Code which expressly provides: "A district may add fluorine or fluorine compounds to the supply of the district only if the voters of the district have approved the addition of the fluorine and fluorine compounds to the water supply." (Emphasis added.) The Code establishes that issue be decided by a majority of the voters in the district voting in a special election called to determine the fluoridation issue.

So when was Topanga's fluoride referendum held? Never happened. Why?

The Public Utility Code's referendum requirement applies to "municipal utility district[s]" formed under the Public Utility Code. There are some 200 such districts in the State of California, according to Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, but Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 (District 29), which supplies Topanga and Malibu, is not among them. Turns out, when District 29 was created in September 1959, it was organized under the State Water Code, not the Public Utility Code.

The Topanga Story, Louise Armstrong York's classic saga of early Topanga history, details the water politics of Topanga in the days before the town tied into MWD. Though not quite the stuff of Chinatown, York's account makes for an interesting read. (At one point, York writes, Mattie Haney, who ran one of Topanga's well-driven water companies, left the state under threat of arrest by the Public Utility Commission amid disputes between Old Canyon and Post Office Tract residents over the system's limited water supply.)

In point of fact, Topanga once had its own public water utility, or perhaps more accurately, several of them. In the early days, while some homesteaders hauled their water up the hill in five-gallon jugs, others were supplied by water piped into their lots from "mutual water companies" fed by oft-depleted local wells.

After initially rejecting the idea by an overwhelming margin, a majority of Topangans voted in 1959 to approve the formation of County Waterworks District 29 and took on the bonded indepebtedness, financed by taxes in their land, to construct the necessary pipelines in stages. In doing so, York says Topangans sought to increase local control, improve existing water resources, and reduce reliance on MWD.

In the end, Topangans and residents of Malibu got their water district and a reliable source of potable water, but very little else of what they initially sought. More than 189 miles of pipeline were ultimately built at the expense of residents of Topanga and Malibu stretching all the way to the Ventura County line, but Topangans did not get the locally elected or appointed water boards they had asked for and 100 percent of their water is now supplied by MWD.

Moreover, the creation of District 29 did not put Topanga's "water wars" to rest: over the next 10 years public controversies continued as the cost of the pipeline system increased, the lack of local control grew ever more evident and a legal battle unsuccessfully challenging the new system wound its way to the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court.

And, by a technicality in the manner of the formation of their water district back in 1959, Topangans apparently forfeited their right to vote in a referendum on whether water supply should be fluoridated (something few, if any, were likely thinking about at the time). The Messenger has attempted to reach the appropriate official at the County who could shed light on the question of why public policy should require a referendum to be held before a water district formed under the Public Utility Code can fluoridate the water of its customers, yet not require such public consent on the part of a water district formed under the Water Code. County officials have not returned our calls and e-mails as of press time.

So Who's To Blame (or Praise)?

Since they never got to vote on it, whom do Topangans unhappy with what's about to come pouring out of their faucets have to blame - and whom can those happy about the decision thank, if so inclined?

If District 29 were quite a bit bigger, residents could point the finger to State Senator Sheila Kuehl. Kuehl's aide Laurie Newman informed the Messenger that her boss had enthusiastically supported Assembly Bill 733, a state law passed in 1995 requiring fluoridation of public water systems having at least 10,000 service connections (assuming outside funding for the project were available). Like it or lump it, if A.B. 733 applied to Topanga, at least someone whom Topangans had a chance to- vote for would have had a role in making the decision.

But according to its website, District 29 has only 7,331 service hookups, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of AB 733. Thus, Kuehl deserves no blame nor credit in the matter.

It's hard to find fault or reason for rejoicing at District 29, either. District 29 never actually made the decision to "go fluoride." If it had, the guy in the hot seat would be County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky - again, someone accountable to Topangans at the ballot box. But the fact is that the County Board of Supervisors, which also sits at District 29's board of directors, never put the matter of fluoridating District 29's water supply to a vote.

Instead, District 29, which buys all of its water from wholesaler West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin), was informed by its supplier that the water it was purchasing from them was going to be fluoridated beginning this October.

Unlike its own local water district, Topanga actually does have an elected representative at West Basin, Ed Little. Little, the proprietor of Ed Little Auto Services of Culver City, also represents a lot of other places like the cities of Culver City, El Segundo, Malibu, West Hollywood, and unincorporated areas of Lennox, North Ladera Heights, Del Aire, View Park and Windsor Hills. He is by far the most experienced member of the West Basin board of directors - having originally been appointed by that body in 1989 to fill a vacancy in its numbers, he has been elected five times since and is now in his sixth four-year term of office. Before that, he worked on the election to annex Culver City to West Basin. He is a man who knows the ins and outs of water politics.

The issue of fluoride never came up in last November's election, according to former State Assemblymember Paul Koretz, whom Little edged out by a narrow margin.

But now that it has, Little says, were it up to him, Topangans would still be getting their fluoride at their drug store or dentist's office, not from their kitchen and bathroom sinks. "I don't believe in it," says Little flatly. He's careful to explain that his opposition is not because of questions about the efficacy or safety of the fluoridation process.

"I think it's beneficial. I don't think it's harmful. They've got irrefutable evidence that's not true." When asked about recent studies linking fluoride in public water systems to cancer, fluorosis and other ailments, Little says he is unfamiliar with them. "But the Surgeon General has medical evidence very supportive of it. I think it doesn't hurt anyone, especially in the small amounts they put in the water. You know, fluoride is a poison. Arsenic is a poison too. But you need to have arsenic in your body to live and function," says Little.

Still, if Little had ever been given the chance to vote on whether fluoride should be added to the public water supply, he says his answer would have been a resounding "No!" Why?

"I don't believe in treating people medically without their permission." That's exactly what fluoridation is, says Little. When water systems chlorinate the water, they are taking necessary steps to treat the water supply itself, to remove bacteria that would otherwise make the water dangerous for human consumption, Little explains. In fluoridation, however, the water is being used simply as a vehicle to deliver a medical or dental treatment unrelated to the quality of the water itself, simply because some people believe the treatment will be of benefit to others receiving it.

"I don't believe that's right," says Little. "Even if you took a vote and 51 percent of the people said they wanted to receive fluoride or some other medical treatment in the water, I don't think it would be right to impose it on the other 49 percent who didn't give their consent or are opposed to it."

Unfortunately for anti-fluoride forces, West Basin's board never took a vote on whether to fluoridate the water it sells Topanga or any of its other customers, says Little.

Instead, it was MWD who made that momentous decision in February 2003. Neither Topanga and District 29 have any direct representation on MWD's board of directors. For that matter, neither does the County of Los Angeles.

West Basin, as a member of MWD, is entitled to two representatives on MWD's board, and for many years in the past and again at this time, one of West Basin's representatives has been Ed Little. But Little says he was off the MWD board during the crucial period four years ago, when MWD decided it would fluoridate the water of all 26 cities and water districts that were members of its consortium, as well as those who purchased water from any of them (an estimated 18 million people in Southern California). "It was internal politics," was all Little would say.

Instead, West Basin's votes on MWD's fluoride decision were cast by two people who had no accountability to Topanga: Carol Kwan, a West Basin Board member who was elected by the cities of Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and unincorporated areas of Torrance; and Willard H. Murray, Jr., who was not even elected to the West Basin board in the first place. (Murray, a former state legislator, recently resigned his position on the MWD board in the wake of a state Attorney General's conflict-of-interest ruling.)

Little said the West Basin board did not vote to instruct its representatives to MWD how to vote on the fluoride issue, and he does not know how Kwan and Murray actually did vote. West Basin's media relations representative referrered the Messenger's inquiries about that and related matters to West Basin's executive secretary, who did not return repeated phone calls as of press time.

But Little also indicates that West Basin's input, which constitutes only about seven percent of the vote at MWD, would have had only an insignificant effect on the outcome of the fluoridation decision in any event.

"If you look back at the way the votes go at Met (MWD), if (the City of) L.A. and San Diego are in favor of it, it's pretty much a done deal. Together, they control about 44 percent of the vote. It would take a lot to turn things around on them."

Little says that the City of Los Angeles was already fluoridating water it purchased from MWD prior to MWD's decision to start fluoridating. "You've got to realize, fluoridation is something that's expensive to do at a small level; it's relatively inexpensive to do on a large-scale basis." If the City of Los Angeles could convince MWD to start fluoridating its water, that was a cost L.A. would no longer have to bear, explains Little.

Green of Citizen's for Safe Drinking Water buys Little's explanation, and adds his own perspective on the San Diego politics involved. Green says the City of San Diego has an ordinance prohibiting fluoridation, but certain San Diego County Water Authority officials are fluoride supporters. "I got two days notice of the meeting in 2003. It was all kept pretty quiet that this decision was coming up."

The decision to report the motion to fluoridate out of committee to the full MWD board came down to a single swing vote, says Green. That vote was cast by the representative from the San Diego County Water Authority, he notes, thereby circumventing a head-to-head contest with the City of San Diego over its anti-fluoride ordinance.

Board misled?

Little also says that the board members in 2003 were heavily influenced by a report from MWD's general counsel advising them that they were legally required to initiate fluoridation under state law by the mandate of A.B. 733. "Technically, no, we have fewer than 10,000 connections. But actually, we have many, many more than that if you consider all of the customers who receive water supplied by MWD. We were told by legal counsel that the spirit of the law required that we had to comply with it [A.B. 733]."

Today, however, MWD's website expressly states, referring to A.B. 733, "Metropolitan was exempt from the conditions of the law." That statement, quite obviously true (MWD, a wholesaler of water, has no service connections and is therefore not covered by A.B. 733) was recently reiterated by MWD's spokesperson Ed Dymally in an interview with the Messenger. Has MWD changed its position on the requirements of the law or were board members misled by counsel at the time of their vote?

Taxation without representation?

Green argues that MWD is continuing to mislead many of its board members, as well as the general public, about who will bear the costs of its fluoridation effort.

MWD makes much of the fact that the capital costs of the project have been underwritten by a $5.5 million grant by the California Dental Association Foundation. However, Green maintains that he has been informed by several MWD officials that the actual cost of initiating fluoridation have far exceeded $5.5 million, due to pumps and other equipment that MWD has installed at the expense of its customers.

Moreover, says Green, the Dental Association grant by its terms covers only capital equipment and requires MWD to bear the cost of maintenance and operation of the system for a period of at least 10 years. Those costs, he says, will be passed along to ratepayers, including Topangans and others like them who had no vote in the process that led to the assessment.

Green argues such a scenario would constitute a violation of Proposition 218, a taxpayer initiative adopted in 1996 to beef up Prop 13 by giving taxpayers the right to approve or reject local governments' tax increases and special assessments. Prop 218 requires two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes, which Green says would apply to any assessment or rate increase to cover the cost of fluoridation.

Fees for sewer, water and refuse collection are expressly excepted from the ambit of Prop 218. However, Green maintains that MWD cannot pass along fluoridation costs as part of a regular water bill because A.B. 733 expressly requires an outside source of funding other than assessments on ratepayers or taxpayers. No doubt, the matter will wind up in court.

Unringing the Bell

Now that the fluoridation decision has been made, albeit with no participation by Topangans or their representatives, what chance is there of reversing course?

"How do you stop the train?" asks Little, rhetorically. "I don't see how. We rejected it for a long time. Until someone came up with five million dollars, and then everyone was full-speed ahead. Now that it's underway, I don't see how you can stop it. If you got enough people, you could. But it would have to be a tremendous outpouring of people."

Little said that fluoride opponents should take no hope from the August 20 meeting. "When I got back on the Met (MWD) board, the decision had already been made. As far as I understood, the meeting in August was not to revisit that decision, it was to bring us up to date on how things were going to be put into effect."

If that's so, and if Topangans don't want their water fluoridated, can't District 29 simply decide to purchase its water elsewhere, from an unfluoridated supplier? Could a motion to that effect be brought before the Board of Supervisors?

That question brought one county source nearly to the floor in laughter. The source, who asked not to be identified, asked, "You're kidding, aren't you? Do you know how many years and how many millions of dollars it took to lay those pipelines? They all belong to MWD? What do you think - you're just going to go out and build a whole new infrastructure? To where?"

Little was more restrained in his response but had about the same bottom line. "I don't know where the money or the water would come from. We've got five outlets where MWD water enters our [the West Basin] system. We've got no outlet where water from anywhere else comes in."

But Gene Burke, of the Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water Coalition, characterizes these responses as "speculative and far too pessimistic." His counterpart Jeff Green agrees, arguing that water districts that really don't want fluoride in their water supply have a remedy in the law of contracts, and urges consumers to demand their districts insist on their rights.

For one thing, says Green, every contract will have provisions requiring water supplies comply with all federal, state and local laws. Green claims that industry representatives admit they haven't followed through on the public self-regulatory and certification standards established after the Environmental Protection Agency gave up its role in the oversight of water additives in 1988. "Where's the certification that the substance they're adding to the water complies with NSF International standards?" asks Green. "If they can't produce it, and they've admited none of them can, the water district has the right under contract law to demand that MWD cease and desist from adding it to the water."

Green says that similar objections can and should be raised to what he says is the particularly toxic additive MWD has chosen to use to fluoridate local supplies - hydrofluorosilicic acid, which in addition to fluoride contains arsenic, lead and other carcinogenic and mutagenic substances.

Green has already sent notices to more than 2,000 responsible parties in the chain of MWD's water delivery in an effort to educate them about what he sees as the public health dangers of water fluoridation and to warn them of their potential personal, as well as their official, liability, if they fail to take action to halt the flow of fluoride into our taps.

Green says he's looking for a few good local water districts to join him in taking on the MWD. Will District 29 heed his call? That decision rests with County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, whom Topangans did help to elect.