In a final ruling issued Monday, Circuit Court Judge Frederic Allen Bolling walked back his earlier decision and has dissolved the city’s lawsuit against Central Alabama Water, determining that the utility did not violate the law and is not compelled to reinstate fluoride.

CAW, after facing mounting public outrage over its decision to cease water fluoridation, also faced a lawsuit from the city of Birmingham alleging the utility had potentially violated state law. Alabama law requires 90 days’ notice to the state health officer before changes to fluoridation.

Bolling granted the city’s request on March 30 and issued a temporary restraining order that CAW must continue fluoridating the water. In a final ruling issued Monday, however, Bolling dissolved the restraining order, denied the city’s request for further injunctions and dismissed the case.

The court found that CAW made imperfect but sufficient attempts to notify the Jefferson County Department of Health, determining that any “technical violation” stemmed from a poorly worded March 20 press release that contradicted its notice to JCDH, not an intent to evade the law.

While CAW publicly announced the cessation of fluoridation on March 20, technically in violation of the law, it had already provided notice to the state health officer between March 12 and March 16, which the court deemed adequate notice that the system intended to cease fluoridation after the required 90 days. CAW submitted a revised notice on March 30, that clarified this intent.

At the time of CAW’s March 20 announcement, JCDH officials and the public were unaware that fluoridation had already ceased years prior. The Shades Mountain plant alone lacked fluoridation for more than three years, from September 2020 to March 2024.

The judge placed a portion of blame on the former Birmingham Water Works Board, which was replaced almost a year ago after the state Legislature restructured the utility and its leadership. Bolling’s order said outages at multiple facilities began under the former board and were due to equipment failures and supply issues.

His order states that he was disappointed that millions the former board spent on last-minute contracts — totaling $3.7 million, including one nearly $2.5 million consulting deal — could have instead been used to repair failing infrastructure.

However, he noted that even if violations had occurred, the court was convinced CAW could not safely resume fluoridation before June, when the notice period will have elapsed, and the court lacked authority to compel CAW to restore fluoridation beyond that point.

“The disappointment for this Court comes from the fact that my hometown seems to be caught in a place where the leaders can’t disagree without cutting off all communication,” Bolling said in his ruling. “There is simply no way the amount of 3.7 million dollars should be an impossible barrier to the provision of what has been testified to as the TOP 10 public health achievement of our time.

“There are more than fifty (50) cities and communities that will be affected by the removal of the fluoride. That means that less than $80,000.00 per city and community is needed to make sure that our citizens have the best and most healthy drinking water available.

“It is an absolute shame that this issue cannot be otherwise worked out. My disappointment aside, the law on this matter is relatively simple. Did Central Alabama Water violate the law, when it announced on March 20, 2026, that it had already ended fluoride in the drinking water? Yes. Next, did Central Alabama Water provide the statutorily required notice of intent to end fluoride? Yes, on March 12, 2026, Central Alabama Water provided a notice that this Court finds was compliant with the statute. Does the Court have authority to force Central Alabama Water to resume fluoride beyond June 2026? No, the statute only requires Central Alabama Water to issue notice to the State Health Officer ninety (90) days before ending the process of adding fluoride to the water.”

The ruling further rejected the city’s claim that ending fluoridation constituted a public nuisance, citing precedent that bars courts from treating lawful actions as nuisances.