Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 144.145 (2026)

Fluoridation Of Municipal Water Supplies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of promoting public health through prevention of tooth decay, the person, firm, corporation, or municipality having jurisdiction over a municipal water supply, whether publicly or privately owned or operated, shall control the quantities of fluoride in the water so as to maintain a fluoride content prescribed by the state commissioner of health. In the manner provided by law, the state commissioner of health shall promulgate rules relating to the fluoridation of public water supplies which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) the means by which fluoride is controlled; (2) the methods of testing the fluoride content; and (3) the records to be kept relating to fluoridation. The state commissioner of health shall enforce the provisions of this section. In so doing the commissioner shall require the fluoridation of water in all municipal water supplies on or before January 1, 1970. The state commissioner of health shall not require the fluoridation of water in any municipal water supply where such water supply in the state of nature contains sufficient fluorides to conform with the rules of such commissioner.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1976–1987 · leading case: Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 2× “On July 5, 1974, this convention declared § 144.145 and Minn.Reg.1969 MHD 112(b) to be an unconstitutional invasion of individual rights.”

Moes v. City of St. Paul, 402 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “The medical studies submitted by respondent do not provide the type of overwhelming evidence necessary to sustain a constitutional challenge. If respondent wishes to challenge the presumption of section 176.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.