Even though no final action was taken, the fluoridation opponents did not wait long before organizing. The Committee for Safe Water met on August 17, 1977, to consider its plan of action and the 25 people present planned strategy for a September 28, public hearing held by the Board of Health. Charlene Buckler of the board told an Eagle reporter that the committee had "some rather ambitious plans in mind" to counter local pro-fluoride forces. She added, "We feel the general public has not been allowed to be told all the new findings. They think it's within the bounds of safe limits, but it's not within safe bounds." (Eagle, 8/17/77).

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, the science director for the National Health Federation, an organization opposed to fluoridation, was brought in to head the opposition. A rally to raise support for the anti-fluoride forces was held on September 27, 1977, and some 125 persons were urged to attend the public hearing the following day. The rally, which offered anti-fluoride bumper stickers and pamphlets, was formed to educate against fluoridation. Although Yiamouyiannis was filming a Good Morning, America episode, John R. Graham, an associate professor of law at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Dr. Albert W. Burgstahler, a professor of organic chemistry at Kansas University, presented their scientific evidence against fluoridation. The opponents claimed that pro-fluoride forces, including the National Cancer Institute and the American Dental Association, were part of a massive cover-up, worse than Watergate, to prevent the knowledge of the dangers of fluoridation. The recall of Commissioners Connie Peters, Garry Porter, and Jack Shanahan was suggested by one member of the audience as a way to fight fluoridation and gay rights. Earlier that day, the three had also voted to pass an ordinance providing equal rights for homosexuals.

The pro-fluoride groups were not inactive either. At a news conference on September 26, 1977, an EPA official, Rick Weller, stated unequivocally that fluoride would not corrode water pipes. Both Weller and Dr. Kenneth Farha, dental society spokesman, also stated that the cover-up theory was not supported by facts, and studies clearly showed the benefits of fluoridation.

The public hearing was held before the City-County Board of Health on September 28. Fifty-two persons addressed the board in the afternoon and 20 more in the evening session, with the speakers evenly divided on the issue. The debate followed the same patterns as in the past 25 years. The opponents claimed fluoride pollution poisoned the community, took away freedom of choice, and forced mass medication on the public while giving them cancer. The proponents contended that fluoridation had been proven effective, with 60 percent of the American populace drinking fluoridated water. Prominent organizations, including the American Dental Association, the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Osteopathic Association, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the American Pharmaceutical Association, were mentioned frequently.

A study by Yiamouyiannis, who appeared at the night session, became a matter of contention. It had been conducted with Dr. Dean Burk of the Dean Burk Foundation and concluded that fluoride was linked to cancer. Many of the opponents to fluoride referred to the study. The proponents, including the National Cancer Institute, attacked it, however, claiming that its results could not be duplicated, and that many other studies found contrary results. No specific action was taken on the hearing, but instead, the board, under Chairman Roger Turner, planned to study the information before making a recommendation to the City Commission in mid-November.

The day following the hearing, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was featured at a news conference held by the Safe Water Foundation of Wichita, an anti-fluoridation organization. Although the same general facts were presented, the setting heightened the publicity against fluoridation.

Fluoridation advocates received a boost on October 13, 1977, when Dr. Edgar Cleaver, the city-county health director, presented a report to the Board of Health calling for fluoridation of Wichita's water supply. At the board's request, the Health Department prepared the preliminary draft of the document, Final Report to the City Commission on Fluoridation of the Wichita Water Supply. If the board accepted the report, it would recommend to the commission to fluoridate the water to "an optimum level" of 0.9 parts per million as soon as practicable.

The report presented the scientific evidence of both sides of the issue and other arguments on fluoridation. It included an analysis of the positions presented at the public hearing. The conclusion favored fluoridation, emphasizing "the overwhelming preponderance of professional testimony and scientific studies" showing no harmful effects such as a causal relationship with cancer. It stated, "one professional opinion to the contrary has been refuted by other scientific investigators." Overall, the report claimed the evidence and testimony indicated fluoridation would be a healthy step for the city to take with minimal costs or risks. The report further stated that fluoridation was not mass medication "because it is not a medicine in the quantities used in water. Fluoridated water will not treat caries (cavities), nor will it cure the condition. Once started, dental decay is untreatable. What fluoridation will do is prevent the occurrence of many caries, and this principle of prevention has been well established since the beginning of public health." (Beacon, 10/13/77).

On November 10, the City-County Health Board, after considering the report, voted 6 to 2 to recommend fluoridation to the City Commission. On November 29, it came up for discussion by the commission.

At the meeting, the same arguments were heard once again in an eight-hour public hearing with 75 speakers, mostly opponents. At 11:00 p.m., the commission voted 4 to 1 in favor of fluoridation, with Mayor Tony Casado voting no. The commission then authorized Denton to begin plans for fluoridation. As the past had demonstrated, however, the decision did not close the issue. The anti-fluoridation groups began plans immediately to block the action, with Dr. Yiamouyiannis announcing a meeting the following day to begin a petition for a referendum on the issue. The meeting, held on November 30, was attended by some 30 persons who planned to circulate petitions requiring a vote of the people before fluoridation could be enacted. Over the next two weeks the petitions were circulated.

An ordinance authorizing fluoridation was presented to the commission by the city manager on December 2, 1977. At the same meeting, a petition with 13,740 signatures called for a referendum to require a popular vote to fluoridate the public water supply. Ironically, another petition with 31,399 signatures was presented at the same time to call a referendum to repeal the commission's gay rights vote.

Before the referendum could be declared, the petition signatures had to be certified. Registered voters totalling 25 percent of the number of people voting in the last election had to sign. The commission voted 4 to 1, with Casado casting the lone vote, to place the fluoridation ordinance on first reading with a vote on second reading delayed until the petition was certified. The petition did not allow for the repeal of an ordinance, but only called for a vote to require a vote, so a fluoridation ordinance could have been passed before a vote was taken and it would not have been affected. But the commission avoided offering two conflicting ordinances at the same time and delayed it until the petition was investigated.

Following certification by the Sedgwick County Election Commission, the City Commission approved the gay rights petition on February 23, 1978, setting up a referendum repealing the original ordinance. In so doing, the commissioners refused to yield to the pressure to repeal the ordinance, but chose to bring the matter up for a public vote. The fluoridation petition also was considered, but it encountered several difficulties.

The proposed ordinance called for in the petition read: "That the Wichita public water supply shall not be fluoridated without a binding vote of the people." (City Clerk's Files). The question remained over what exactly the ordinance would mean. The commission gave initial approval to the ordinance the petition requested on February 23, and waited to see how to interpret the sentence.

City Attorney Dekker said that state law did not allow for cities to pass ordinances calling for referenda, except those on bond issues, unless prescribed by the legislature. Therefore, the ordinance would not allow a vote, but actually would have to be enforced as a direct ban on fluoridation. The "binding vote" clause was only surplusage, according to Dekker, and, if the ordinance passed, it would have to be amended or repealed to allow fluoridation, which would mean waiting until the April, 1978, general election, according to statute. In response to his views, the