Friday, Feb. 27, was the drop-dead date for lawmakers in Sacramento to introduce new bills for consideration. Hundreds of bills were introduced at the last minute that day, and there are now over 2,000 new bills for the State and Assembly to consider. They include everything from the two big, hot culture-war ones making headlines (mandatory vaccination for measles and an assisted suicide bill) to other single-issue type stuff, such as a law calling for mandatory bike helmets for adults.

Each year there are bills that get introduced, only to be shot down in a flurry of high-volume industry lobbying and corporate meddling in the democratic process. Two issues that jump to mind this year and which fall into that category: soda taxes and fracking bans.

This year, for the third year running, a state lawmaker introduced a sugary beverages bill, which would force Big Soda to put a warning on the label that says this junk will give you diabetes. State Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, introduced SB 203, a bill that will likely go nowhere, if history is any indication.

Who needs the Koch brothers when you have the Coke lobby? The soda pop industry has pushed back hard against these bills in years past, and the bills have died on the vine in Sacramento. A recent report on KQED radio highlighted that the soda war has been lost in Sacramento but rages on in enlightened localities eager to push back against staggering rates of childhood diabetes.

Stymied in Sacramento, some municipalities around the state have taken it on themselves to regulate soda consumption, with varying degrees of success. Last year the debate went local, as Berkeley and San Francisco both attempted to levy a tax on fizzy sugar drinks. Berkeley prevailed in its effort, but intense industry pressure—to the tune of
$7.7 million spent by Big Soda—swatted back the San Francisco move to tax soda.

So too fracking. The Western States Petroleum Association lobbying group (WSPA) has poured millions, if not bazillions, into defending the earthquake-enhancing, water-wasting, toxic process of hydraulic fracturing in the state. Fracking’s been going on here for three decades, but only recently fell under legislative scrutiny through 2013’s SB 4.

And, as the debate over fracking intensified in the state, so to did WSPA’s lobbying efforts. A well-traveled factoid that emerged from the California Secretary of State earlier this year: WSPA spent nearly $9 million in lobbying in 2014—twice the previous year.

It appears that state lawmakers have moved on from throwing hopeless bills across the transom that call for a ban. Instead they are trying to hold the industry accountable for groundwater contamination and other fallout. A bill from Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, would force the industry to bring its practices into compliance with federal water-safety standards.

As in the soda fight, numerous localities around the state have taken it on themselves to pass local anti-fracking measures in the absence of tough statewide legislation. An environmental review mandated by SB 4 is expected in July.

When SB 4 passed in 2013, the industry was given until July to expand its operations without any meddling from the state whatsoever. Meanwhile, the industry has poured money into places like Santa Barbara through Big Oil front groups such as Californians for Energy Independence. According to numerous online sources, that group spent nearly $7 million to defeat a local anti-fracking proposition in 2014.

Meanwhile, does anyone remember a recent U.S. government study that said 96 percent of Monterey Shale gas and oil resources are unreachable by fracking or other means?

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

That’s a line from Dr. Strangelove— and if you thought fluoridation was an antiquated debate from a bygone era, you haven’t learned to stop worrying and love the fluoridation.

Sonoma County is in the midst of a contentious process that could lead to the fluoridation of its drinking water. But wasn’t this debate settled years ago? Apparently not.

A county fluoridation advisory committee is tasked with making a recommendation on “community fluoridation” to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, which would be done through the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA).

Flouridation, proponents say, will help fight tooth decay in a county where studies have found at least half the kids in need of better dental care. Opposing views, to put it mildly, run strong.

Judith Iam is a Sonoma County fluoridation opponent who cites what she calls “the precautionary principle,” which says that “if there’s any reason where something might give one pause, don’t do it. Find another way to do this.” She agrees with the goal—preventing kids from having tooth decay—but argues that “there are direct ways to do that without medicating everybody.

“There are lots of studies,” she adds, that link fluoridation to “thyroid, bone and brain issues. I don’t want any of that.” Iam additionally cites costs to the county to study an issue that she says should be dead and buried.

Even as nearly three-quarters of Americans consume fluoridated water, strong viewpoints over community fluoridation render the issue as controversial as anti-vaccination activism, one of those intersections in American civic discourse where left meets right.

Opponents cite health hazards associated with fluoride—fluorosis, calcified glands, thyroid disease. More libertarian-minded opponents say they are being force-fed a drug against their choice.

Proponents say it’s a mineral additive, not a drug, and one of the most common substances on earth. Like salt or vitamin A, they argue, you need fluoride, but too much of it can be toxic.

“It’s effective, cost-effective and it’s very safe,” says Sonoma County Health Officer Dr. Karen Milman. “The more detailed reviews don’t show negative health impacts. Both sides of this issue are concerned about health—we’re all concerned.”

Milman says that she respects opponents of fluoridation but believes that many offer “a values or belief argument over a science argument. It’s a very passionate issue.”

Fluoridation is a class and a cultural issue in Sonoma County. The county website heralds the benefits of fluoridation and highlights that the county’s poorest residents, many of them Latino, have poor dental health. The biggest direct benefit, says Milman, would be in Santa Rosa, where the infrastructure would make it possible to give a full fluoride dose to residents. But residents around the county would benefit, she says.

The county is deep into a multi-year effort to provide enhanced dental health through community dental clinics and other measures. The final pillar is fluoridation, says Milman.

Here’s some of the backdrop: In 1996, California lawmakers passed AB 733, which set the stage for today’s fight over fluoridation. That law said that any water district with more than 10,000 hookups had to introduce fluoride into the water supply—but only if it could pay for it without passing the cost to consumers. Critics noted that the bill was essentially a voluntary fluoridation program with a huge loophole that places like Sonoma County jumped through.

But now, even if the supervisors vote in favor of fluoridation, the county would first have to commission an engineering study to figure out how to do it. County officials estimate fluoridating the water will cost upwards of $600,000 annually. They don’t even know if flouridation’s going to be enacted here, let alone how they’ll pay for it.

“We’re not there yet,” says Milman. “The county board of supervisors is still assessing whether this is feasible and whether to go forward with it.”

In 2006, Milman says, California ranked 48th out of 50 states when it came to statewide fluoridation. Between 2008 and 2013, California’s fluoridated water supply jumped from 27 percent to 58 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and the California State Health Department.

Regionally, San Francisco and Oakland both fluoridate their water. Napa County does not. Santa Rosa and Cotati get water from the SCWA, and Cotati is on record in opposition to fluoridation. But local opposition may be moot. A 2004 amendment to the flouridation law would supersede local anti-fluoridation laws.

The fluoridation battle lines are hardening. As the county continues with its studies, the advocacy group Clean Water Sonoma-Marin is gearing up for the long fight ahead. They’re crowdfunding an appearance by a former government scientist, who’ll speak to the danger of fluoride in April. There’s no timetable from the county about when it might come to a decision, says Milman.

Correction: This article originally stated that California passed further flouridation legislation in 2006 that would restrict localities’ ability to ban flouridation. That legislation was signed in 2004.