A fluoridation bill expected to reach the state House of Representatives calendar next week probably will not affect most local water companies, but could cost the University additional funds to maintain regulated fluoride levels.

The bill, which left the House Local Government Committee, requires local water companies with more than 250 connections to provide trace amounts of fluoride in the water supply.

Paul Fisher, State College Water Authority manager, said the bill would not affect the company because State College water has been fluoridated since the late 1950s.

"We've been doing it for 30 years," Fisher said. "To say we have to wouldn't change anything for us." He added that the company originally decided to fluoridate because of community interest expressed in a customer survey.

Supplying fluoride to the 41,000 individuals served by the company costs $42,300 -- about $1 annually for each customer, Fisher said. That totals about 2.5 percent of the authority's annual budget, he added.

University Physical Plant Information Coordinator Ardath Johnson said Penn State does not fluoridate its water, but consistently exceeds most state standards. If the law is passed, she said, the University will comply.

Johnson could not say how much the law, if passed, would cost the University.

Lemont Water Company manager Jack Mitchell said his company chose not to fluoridate several years ago because of the possibility of health dangers for its elderly customers, as cited in studies released in the early 1980s. Also, he said, experts see no health benefits from fluoride after the teenage years.

"There's a great population of the elderly in the town of Lemont," Mitchell said. "Without any more positive facts or any greater benefit, we simply didn't want to go one way or another."

He added that customers with small children can purchase fluoride tablets inexpensively.

However, Mitchell said, the company would comply with fluoridation laws, though he said the state should update research before passing the bill.

The bill's prime sponsor, State Rep. Edward Haluska, D-Cambria, said studies which suggested that fluoride may be dangerous have not been substantiated while organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association have supported fluoridation requirements.

"If all the things they talk about were fact, (victims) would be coming out of the walls. We would have more crippled people than we could possibly count," Haluska said. Also, the one part-per-million trace of fluoride is much less than fluoridation which naturally occurs in cities such as Jacksonville, Fla., he said.

Haluska said the bill is necessary because of the high cost of dental care. He said $38 million in Medicaid payments which covered dental payments could have been eliminated and several unions have supported the bill because of the high cost of group dental insurance packages.

About three million individuals --out of four million who do not receive fluoride in their water currently -- would be affected by the fluoridation requirement if the bill becomes law, Haluska said. Major companies affected are in the Philadelphia, Scranton and York areas, he said.

Fluoridation in several large water companies has been hindered because of home rule charters which would require all participating municipalities under a water company's service to agree to fluoridate before any receive fluoridated water, Haluska said.