New Hampshire Water Fluoride: Updated Statistics

New Hampshire’s water fluoridation statistics have undergone marked changes over the past two decades, with variations in coverage, demographic disparities, and emerging health metrics. This article compiles comprehensive data on fluoridation rates, population coverage, and comparative figures to provide an up-to-date, statistically driven overview of the current landscape.

While many U.S. states surpass New Hampshire in fluoridation coverage, the Granite State’s relatively decentralized system and rural infrastructure challenges have led to wide gaps in fluoride availability. By examining historical trends alongside present-day data, readers can gain clear insights into the patterns and outcomes associated with New Hampshire’s fluoridated water supply.

Key Statistical Highlights

These select data points outline the scope of fluoride coverage, usage, and health outcomes in New Hampshire:

• As of 2025, 25–30% of the total New Hampshire population receives fluoridated water through community systems.
• Rural counties like Coös and Carroll have fluoridation rates below 20%, compared to higher rates in urban centers.
• Around 15% of children in New Hampshire show signs of mild dental fluorosis.
• New Hampshire’s adolescent dental caries rates are 22% higher than those in Maine, where coverage is greater.

These figures represent just a snapshot of the available data, underscoring statewide disparities and the continuing debate over fluoridation practices. The following sections provide a deeper look at historical context, current coverage, regional comparisons, and associated health metrics.

Historical Fluoridation Coverage

Understanding past coverage rates clarifies how modern trends developed.

• 43% of residents served by public water supplies had access to fluoridated water in 2002, representing around 67% of the state’s population connected to municipal systems.
• By 2007, approximately 350,000 people (about 25% of the entire state population) were served by fluoridated systems.
• Manchester’s fluoridation adoption in 2000 significantly expanded urban coverage, paving the way for further municipal participation.
• In 2012, the New Hampshire Fluoride Notification Law emphasized public awareness on potential infant fluorosis risks, but did not drastically reduce statewide fluoridation rates.

These numbers reflect early efforts to boost coverage despite a decentralized approach. Gradual increases in urban areas contrasted with more limited expansion in rural regions. The table below offers a brief summary of historical benchmarks:

By analyzing these milestones, it becomes clear that policy changes, community decisions, and evolving health guidelines all influenced coverage levels across New Hampshire.

Current Rates and Demographic Distributions

Recent data sheds light on how much of the population is served and which groups are most affected by coverage gaps.

• In 2025, 25–30% of New Hampshire’s total population is on fluoridated community water supplies.
• Among households using public water systems, about 32% currently receive fluoridated water.
• Approximately 12% of rural counties classified as “non-core” have access to fluoridated water, while metropolitan regions report over 70% coverage.
• Temporary shortages, such as the 2022 supply disruption in Dover affecting 50,000 residents, highlight ongoing vulnerabilities.

These figures point to an urban-rural divide, as well as periodic supply chain issues that can disrupt service even in areas accustomed to fluoridation. The table below organizes current coverage data by major county types:

Although some communities have achieved steady access, the statewide average remains lower compared to the broader New England region due to these demographic splits.

Regional Comparisons in New England

Comparisons with nearby states highlight how New Hampshire’s fluoridation coverage fits into a broader regional context.

• Maine leads New England with 79.5% coverage, supported by statewide mandates for larger water systems.
• Massachusetts follows at 75%, with universal fluoridation requirements in municipalities above a certain population threshold.
• Vermont stands at 68%, aided by grants that help upgrade smaller water systems.
• New Hampshire’s 25–30% average remains the lowest in the region.

The figures across state lines underscore the effect of legislative mandates and state-level policies on achieving higher coverage. See below for a summary of New England fluoridation coverage rates:

Significant policy variations contribute to these differences, with New Hampshire adopting fewer statewide mandates. As a result, coverage levels trail behind regional counterparts.

Health and Cost Indicators

Fluoridation rates not only influence oral health outcomes but also affect economic and care-related factors.

• 15% of New Hampshire children exhibit mild fluorosis, compared to 12% in states with higher coverage.
• Adolescent dental caries rates in New Hampshire are 22% higher than Maine’s, a potential indicator of under-fluoridation.
• Fluoride can reduce tooth decay by 25–40%, which is particularly relevant where preventive care is less accessible.
• Statewide Medicaid dental expenditures average $38/person, exceeding the national average of about $24/person.

Data points such as caries prevalence and dental expenditures highlight tangible effects of lower fluoridation coverage. This table offers additional figures on fluoride-related health metrics:

While fluorosis concerns persist, the potential benefits for preventing caries and reducing emergency dental visits remain statistically significant.

Key Statistics Summary

• Roughly 25–30% of New Hampshire’s total population receives fluoridated water in 2025.
• Urban coverage surpasses 70%, while rural coverage dips to just 12% in some areas.
• State Medicaid dental costs average $38 per person, higher than the national norm of $24.
• New Hampshire’s adolescent caries rates are 22% higher than in Maine.

Overall, New Hampshire’s data demonstrates modest coverage that significantly trails neighboring states. Disparities between urban and rural areas remain pronounced, and cost indicators underscore the real-world impacts of fluoridation policies and practices.