FARMINGTON --The issue of who will pay attorney's fees in the fluoride case appears to be headed to the Utah Supreme Court. The case revolves around whether Davis County owes David Irvine, attorney for Utahns for Better Dental Health, $145,000 for his work with the health group. Irvine's request for payment was denied in 2003 by 2nd District Judge Glen R. Dawson. Irvine appealed. The court of appeals remanded the case back to Dawson last year, saying that Dawson's initial findings were inadequate. Dawson revised his ruling, which was sent back to the appeals court last week.

Dawson's latest ruling, dated Feb. 21, still denies legal fees to Irvine.

On Wednesday Irvine said he will appeal to the Utah Supreme Court for his fees. "We don't believe the most recent ruling adequately addresses the defects found by the court of appeals," Irvine said.

Davis County Civil Deputy Attorney Gerry Hess, on the other hand, finds that "his (Dawson's) ruling is very thorough and very thoughtful." He said he was pleased with Dawson's ruling, which "is consistent with the law."

Hess said he's disappointed that Irvine intends to appeal, but he expected it.

Because Irvine was acting for the county as UBDH's attorney in the fluoride issue, he said the county owed him $45,000 for his work in 2001. But the amount was adjusted up to $145,000 after the case was appealed and a second vote on fluoridation held.

UBDH claims that Davis County clerk/auditor Steve Rawlings acted "in bad faith" in accepting a petition for a revote on the water fluoridation issue. They contend that Rawlings was biased and prejudice against those who favored fluoridation.

Voters approved adding one part per million of fluoride to the county's water systems by a 51 to 48 percent margin in 2001 and again approved it in 2004 by a 51 to 49 percent margin.

In last week's ruling, Dawson, for a second time, concluded that UBDH "did not present sufficient evidence that the defendant (Rawlings) acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons."

Irvine believes that the county has paid more in obtaining outside legal counsel than they would have paid if they had settled with him for the $45,000. Both sides are optimistic the supreme court will rule in their favor.

"We're pretty confident we'll prevail," Irvine said. He believes the supreme court will rule in favor not only of the original $45,000 owed him, but of the fees he said he's owed on the appeals as well.

Hess though, is confident with Dawson's ruling, saying "He was careful to cover all the bases. His opinion pretty well says it all."

mwilliams@davisclipper.com