Updated on March 7, 2025
4 min read

Colorado Water Fluoride: Updated Statistics

NewMouth is reader supported. We may earn a commission if you purchase something using one of our links. Advertising Disclosure.

Colorado’s longstanding practice of adjusting fluoride levels in public water supplies has generated a wealth of data on coverage rates, health outcomes, and economic impacts. This article highlights key updated statistics on Colorado water fluoride, offering valuable numbers for public health professionals and researchers.

Fluoride’s presence in Colorado water sources varies regionally, and monitoring efforts by state authorities help ensure that residents benefit from dental health advantages while minimizing risk. Through decades of data collection, reports indicate both cost savings and cavity reduction linked to fluoridation.

Below are some primary data points drawn from current research:

  • 75% of Colorado’s population received optimally fluoridated water by 2022.
  • Fluoridation saves $60.78 per person annually in avoided cavity treatments statewide.
  • A 25% reduction in tooth decay was noted among children in fluoridated communities.
  • An estimated $148.9 million in total annual savings is attributed to Colorado’s fluoridation efforts.

Each of these figures underscores the role that fluoride coverage can play in public health economics. The following sections examine additional statistics behind coverage patterns, natural fluoride levels, oral health outcomes, and regional variations.

Coverage and Historical Trends

This section highlights data on how community water fluoridation has evolved in Colorado, alongside key benchmarks and monitoring requirements.

  • Colorado reported 75% overall fluoridation coverage in 2022, surpassing the national average of 72.3%.
  • Neighboring Wyoming stands at 55.6% coverage, while Utah follows with 52%.
  • The state’s target fluoride concentration has been 0.7 mg/L since 2015.
  • Community systems must maintain 75% monthly compliance at 0.7 mg/L for at least 9 months annually to earn excellence awards.
  • Natural fluoride above 0.7 mg/L affects approximately 11 million residents living in mountain or basin regions.

These data points illustrate how both engineered and naturally occurring fluoride levels contribute to Colorado’s coverage profile. The table below shows a snapshot of statewide fluoridation rates over time.

Year % Fluoridation Coverage
2005 ~66%
2015 ~72%
2022 75%

Natural Fluoride Variability

Some Colorado communities have elevated fluoride levels due to geology, requiring specific blending and monitoring practices.

  • Colorado Springs’ groundwater can reach up to 1.30 mg/L fluoride before blending.
  • South Platte River Basin has an average fluoride concentration of 1.16 mg/L.
  • Lake County residents face dual arsenic-fluoride contamination exceeding 2 mg/L.
  • Systems with naturally high fluoride rely on dilution to maintain ~0.7 mg/L levels for distribution.
  • Legal limits address 1.5 mg/L and above as a potential neurodevelopmental risk per federal guidelines.

These figures reveal how geography can influence fluoride concentration. Below is a table summarizing typical natural ranges observed in selected counties:

Location Natural Fluoride Range (mg/L)
Colorado Springs Up to 1.30
South Platte River Basin 0.70–1.16
Lake County 2.00+

Health and Cost Impacts

Below are several data points illustrating the relationship between fluoridation and both dental health outcomes and economic savings.

  • Community Water Fluoridation can cut cavities by 20–40% across multiple age groups.
  • Third graders in fluoridated regions show a 25% lower decay rate compared to non-fluoridated areas.
  • Statewide, about 60% of Colorado’s third graders have experienced tooth decay, and nearly half of those cases remain untreated.
  • Annual per-person savings from fluoridation is approximately $60.78 in Colorado.
  • Total savings from fluoridation programs is estimated at $148.9 million per year in the state.
  • Nationwide, water fluoridation leads to $6.5 billion in total annual savings, an estimated $20 return per $1 invested.

This data shows how fluoridation can confer both public health advantages and economic benefits. An analysis of potential cost savings by expanded coverage appears below.

Fluoridation Scenario Statewide Savings
Current Coverage (75%) $148.9 million/year
Expansion to Additional 52 Systems +$46.6 million/year
Combined Potential Up to $195.5 million/year

Regional Comparisons

Comparisons with nearby states highlight diverse policy environments and fluoridation rates.

  • Colorado – 75% coverage
  • Utah – 52% coverage; fluoridated counties report 30% fewer school absences for dental issues
  • Wyoming – 55.6% coverage with local decision-making
  • Nevada – 74.2% coverage; aligns with national guidelines
  • New Mexico – 65% coverage; some areas exceed 4 mg/L in natural sources
  • Kansas – Increased from 65% to 70% after 2015, aiming for 79.6% coverage

The following table organizes these state coverage rates and relevant notes.

State % Population Served Notes
Colorado 75% 0.7 mg/L statewide target
Utah 52% 30% fewer dental-related school absences
Wyoming 55.6% No state mandate
Nevada 74.2% Semi-urban Hispanic communities at higher risk
New Mexico 65% Groundwater >4 mg/L in 11 systems
Kansas 70% Progress since 2006

Recent Court Considerations

In the context of community water fluoridation, legal rulings and scientific findings have also contributed to ongoing data collection efforts.

  • A 2024 ruling highlighted neurodevelopmental risk over 1.5 mg/L.
  • Insufficient evidence was found to link harm at 0.7 mg/L.
  • Major utilities, such as Denver Water and Fort Collins, affirmed they would continue to maintain 0.7 mg/L.

This indicates that monitoring compliance remains a high priority. Utilities routinely measure fluoride levels to stay within recommended guidelines.

Key Statistics Summary

  • 75% of Colorado’s population is served by fluoridated water systems
  • Up to $195.5 million in potential total yearly savings if expansion occurs
  • 60% of third graders statewide have experienced tooth decay
  • 1.30 mg/L is the upper range for fluoride found in some Colorado Springs groundwater sources
  • 30% fewer school absences from dental issues are noted in Utah’s fluoridated districts

Overall, the data emphasize Colorado’s robust fluoridation coverage and significant economic savings, with notable differences in naturally high-fluoride regions. Neighboring states display varying rates and outcomes, illustrating the diversity of water fluoridation practices across the region.

Last updated on March 7, 2025
17 Sources Cited
Last updated on March 7, 2025
All NewMouth content is medically reviewed and fact-checked by a licensed dentist or orthodontist to ensure the information is factual, current, and relevant.

We have strict sourcing guidelines and only cite from current scientific research, such as scholarly articles, dentistry textbooks, government agencies, and medical journals. This also includes information provided by the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Association of Orthodontics (AAO), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
  1. America’s Health Rankings: Water Fluoridation in Colorado. United Health Foundation, 2022.
  2. America’s Health Rankings: Water Fluoridation in Nevada. United Health Foundation, 2022.
  3. CDPHE CWF Official Statement on Court Ruling. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, 2024.
  4. CDPHE: CO CWF Guidelines 2019. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, 2019.
  5. 2012 Water Fluoridation Statistics by State for the U.S.. U.S. Fluoride Action Network, 2012.
  6. Colorado Sun: Colorado Springs fluoride debate. Colorado Sun, 2024.
  7. Costs and Savings of Community Water Fluoridation. American Journal of Public Health, 2001.
  8. Does Colorado Springs have high levels of fluoride in its untreated water?. Colorado Sun, 2024.
  9. Fluoride Data - NMTracking. New Mexico Department of Health, 2023.
  10. Fluoride distribution in the Rocky Mountains. University of Texas, 2015.
  11. Fluoridation in Ute Water District. Ute Water Conservancy District, 2024.
  12. Fort Collins Utilities Drinking Water Fluoridation. Fort Collins Utilities, 2024.
  13. High natural fluoride in 11 systems in New Mexico. Fluoride Alert, 2023.
  14. Kansas: Community Water Fluoridation. Kansas Health Institute, 2015.
  15. PubMed: Economic evaluation of the costs and benefits. PubMed, 2005.
  16. U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water. Public Health Reports, 2015.
  17. Water fluoridation saves Americans over $6 billion in dental work. University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 2023.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram