San Marcos residents will have the option of voting to keep the city from fluoridating the municipal water system after City Council voted Aug. 18 to add the item to the Nov. 3 ballot. A group of Hays County residents, which is operating under the name Communities For Thriving Water Fluoride-Free San Marcos (CFTW), circulated a petition earlier in 2015 calling for the city to end fluoridation of its water supply. The petition gathered 1,634 signatures but was initially deemed invalid. A recent ruling from Hays County District Judge Bruce Boyer determined the petition was in fact valid and the city should put the item on the ballot. After council’s 5-1 vote in favor of adding the item to the ballot—with Council Member Ryan Thomason voting against and Council Member Shane Scott absent—the issue will be put to voters. The council also voted to add Proposition 2 to the November ballot, which clarifies the rules regarding petitions to add items to a ballot. Morgan Knecht, who was named as a defendant in a lawsuit related to the petition, said he had mixed feelings about the council’s vote. “The language that they put in the proposition isn’t the suggested language we sent,” Knecht said. “It’s not something that we the petitioners sat down with the city and came to an agreement on.” The text of Proposition 1, the ballot item related to fluoridation of the city’s water, says the city will “not add, or direct or require its agents to add fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride to the San Marcos municipal water supply.” CFTW is not asking the city to remove naturally occurring fluoride from the supply, Knecht said. Knecht said the words “add, or direct or require” in Proposition 1 could create a loophole for the city because the GBRA already fluoridates the water it provides the city. Because the GBRA independently fluoridates its water the city would technically be abiding by the language of the proposition if voters approve it in November. A press release issued by CFTW called Propositions 1 and 2 “meaningless and unconstitutional.” “Because San Marcos has contracted fluoridation services to others such as the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority (GBRA), a prohibition against the city directing its employees and agents to fluoridate the water would not even prevent the current fluoridation now occurring because it is GBRA, not San Marcos, who is performing the fluoridation pursuant to a contract,” CFTW Attorney Brad Rockwell said. The language the citizens sent to the city included the words, “The City of San Marcos, including its departments, agents, and contractors, shall not fluoridate the public water supply or accept any fluoridated water for use in the San Marcos water system. Fluoridation means the addition by the City or by any water supplier or provider of sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, or any other fluoride derivative to rainwater, groundwater or surface water." Knect called the council’s vote “sort of an olive branch,” but he wished the city had not bypassed negotiations with the citizens who circulated the petition.