Amid a board shake-up, Birmingham Water Works votes to sell itself to the city, sparking a legal battle.

Control of Alabama's largest water utility, a $1.26 billion public asset that has long been a source of both political tension and civic pride, is at the center of this intricate and quickly intensifying conflict. Many view the Board's decision to give the city ownership as a last-ditch attempt to maintain Birmingham's control over the utility before new state legislation that was passed that same day redraws the boundaries of authority.

However, timing can be crucial, and not to Birmingham's advantage.

A Board on Time Borrowing?

Sen. Dan Roberts (R-Mountain Brook) and Rep. Jim Carns (R-Vestavia Hills) are the sponsors of the recently enacted measure, which was pushed by Republican lawmakers and aims to change the utility's leadership by breaking Birmingham's long-standing hegemony and adding more board members from suburban districts. Additionally, it seems to instantly dissolve the current board, which raises serious concerns about the legality of Wednesday's resolution to sell the utility to the city.

Phillip R. Wiedmeyer of Vestavia Hills, a retired Alabama Power engineer, was appointed to the reorganized board by Jefferson County Commission President Jimmie Stephens shortly after the law went into effect. In a prompt response, Wiedmeyer filed a federal lawsuit to prevent what he claims is unapproved action by the now-defunct board. He asked the U.S. District Court to grant an injunction to prevent any additional actions.

To review the request, Chief U.S. District Judge Emily C. Marks has set a hearing for May 15.

A Billion-Dollar Tug-of-War Game

Tom Henderson and Blount County representative Dalton NeSmith dissenting from the 5–2 decision to sell the water works. Butch Burbage of Shelby County and Monique Gardner Witherspoon of Birmingham were conspicuously absent.

The confrontation was expected by the city's officials. A day earlier, the Birmingham City Council had approved a resolution to purchase the utility, which was worth more than $1.26 billion, for a symbolic $1 and take on its significant debt. The action was presented as a protective step by Mayor Randall Woodfin, who frequently criticizes the water board. He declared, "This is not about defending the board." "It is about protecting one of the most important public resources in Birmingham."

"The Birmingham Water Works Board has never given up on battling for its consumers and making sure the make-up of this board reflects the people it serves," the board said in a defiant official statement. Our board took the appropriate actions to ensure that this system would remain an asset to the city of Birmingham, which it has been and will be.

Does History Recur?

The current issue is reminiscent of previous power struggles. The water works were last formerly held by the city in the late 1990s, prior to a contentious transfer back to an independent board. History might be repeating itself now, but with considerably greater legal complications and statewide ramifications.

The current board's detractors, especially those from suburban towns, have long pointed to rising costs, inadequate customer service, and a lack of regional representation as justifications for the change. Proponents contend that Birmingham should continue to keep majority control because it is the largest investor and the board has improved.

What Comes Next?

The conflict is now on its way to the courtroom, where layers of state power, local rights, and constitutional law will be removed. The future of Birmingham Water Works, a company that provides five counties with millions of gallons of water every day, is in jeopardy until then.

This starts a legal chess game about electricity, water, and who gets to run one of Alabama's most important public institutions.