The fight against the state’s plans to remake the Birmingham Water Works Board heated up Tuesday as the city asked a judge to temporarily block a bill passed to change the membership and offered to buy the BWW for $1, and the water board agreed to offer new contracts to its management team in an attempt to thwart changes to operations of the utility.

U.S. District Court Judge Emily C. Marks denied the city’s request to immediately issue a temporary restraining order blocking Gov. Kay Ivey from signing the bill, but she set a May 15 hearing on arguments over whether to block its implementation.

The city in its suit said the bill passed by the Legislature, Senate Bill 330, would “diminish the oversight and appointing authority of the City of Birmingham and elected officials in Jefferson County, leading to consequential decisions that do not align with the needs of our residents.”

Council President Darrell O’Quinn in a press conference Tuesday morning said, “This bill allows elected officials to be appointed to these positions and even appoint themselves. It excludes the public from bringing their complaints to the board. This is directly in conflict with what we believe democracy is all about.”

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” Councilor Valerie Abbott said as the council passed a resolution to oppose the bill. “We need to look at every possible option.”

The suit alleges that the move to reduce the city’s influence over the water board is racially motivated and unconstitutional.

“True to history, the Alabama State Legislature enacted SB330, which is a bill that strips the City of Birmingham, a majority African American city, of its power to appoint a majority of the directors to Birmingham Water Works Board,” the suit states.

The bill, if signed by the governor, would reduce appointments by Birmingham officials from six to two.

Changing Membership

Currently, two directors are appointed to the BWWB by the mayor of Birmingham; four by the Birmingham City Council; one by the Jefferson County Mayors Association; one by the Shelby County Commission; and one by the Blount County Commission.

Under the new bill, the governor would appoint one member, who would have to be from Jefferson County; and one member each would be appointed by the lieutenant governor, the Birmingham City Council, the Birmingham mayor, the Jefferson County Commission president, the governing body of each county in which a BWWB-owned major reservoir is principally located, and by the commission in the county where the second-largest number of water customers reside.

The last provision would give Shelby County one appointment to the board, because it has the second-largest number of water customers. But there’s debate about how many appointments would be included by the provision that refers to counties where reservoirs are principally located.

Birmingham Water Works has two major reservoirs, Inland Lake in Blount County and Lake Purdy, which is in Jefferson and Shelby counties. Blount County would have one appointment to the board, as it does now. Questions have been raised about whether that provision would give Shelby County a second appointment. And the city’s lawsuit questions whether Walker County, through which the Black Warrior River system that includes Inland Lake flows, could also argue that it should have one appointment.

The suit also raises the specter of whether the bill could invalidate agreements Birmingham and other cities now have with the BWW to use lines run on municipal rights of way.

The council’s resolution opposing the bill also says it could oust current board members immediately, before new ones are appointed, which could leave a vacuum in leadership.

The bill was officially sent to Ivey’s desk on Tuesday. Ivey’s office said officials were reviewing the city’s claims. Under the bill, the first new appointments must be made within 20 days of the bill becoming effective.

‘Extreme Governmental Overreach’

The suit points out that the city of Birmingham built the water utility and contends it is most invested in its future. “SB330, however, will result in disproportionate representation of customers served by the Board, in that a county with only 592 customers (Blount), will have significantly greater representation per capita than Jefferson County, with 202,316 customers, or the City of Birmingham, with 90,411 customers. To further illustrate the point, it should be noted that Walker County, despite currently having only 73 Birmingham Water Works customers, would have authority to appoint one member to the Board in the event it is determined that a ‘Major Reservoir’ exists in the County,” the lawsuit states.

“SB330 represents extreme governmental overreach in response to perceived management issues that the Legislature apparently believes are somehow due to Birmingham’s appointees to the Water Works Board, and, despite the fact that the Board currently includes directors appointed by the Jefferson County Mayors Association and both Shelby and Blount Counties, SB330 reduces Board appointments only for Birmingham.”

The suit continues, “The implication that any perceived problems with the Water Works Board’s management are due to the majority of Board members being appointed by Birmingham is wholly unsupported, is based strictly on the racial makeup of Birmingham being more than 50% black, presents issues of constitutionality and fundamental fairness, constitutes blatant racial discrimination, and is an affront to Birmingham’s elected leadership and its citizens.

“There is no legitimate basis for the apparent assumption that management of the Water Works Board will be improved if Birmingham has fewer appointments.”

The water board met in a special session Tuesday but did not act on the city’s offer to buy the utility. However, it did agree to signing new contracts with current members of the utility’s management team. The details of those contracts have not been firmed up, water officials told AL.com.

The water board has set another special meeting for Wednesday evening.