In this article
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:
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.
This section highlights data on how community water fluoridation has evolved in Colorado, alongside key benchmarks and monitoring requirements.
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% |
Some Colorado communities have elevated fluoride levels due to geology, requiring specific blending and monitoring practices.
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+ |
Below are several data points illustrating the relationship between fluoridation and both dental health outcomes and economic savings.
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 |
Comparisons with nearby states highlight diverse policy environments and fluoridation rates.
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 |
In the context of community water fluoridation, legal rulings and scientific findings have also contributed to ongoing data collection efforts.
This indicates that monitoring compliance remains a high priority. Utilities routinely measure fluoride levels to stay within recommended guidelines.
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.
In this article