On May 7th, in an alarming demonstration of state overreach, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into state law a bill that strips the city of Birmingham of majority control over its water system. The law overhauls the current Birmingham Water Works Board and transfers power from locally elected officials to suburban and state political leaders, with only 2 of the now 7 board seats belonging to Birmingham officials.
The change in board design and remodeling of water governance in Alabama is supposed to “improve efficiency and accountability,” according to proponents, after recent scandals relating to Birmingham’s locally elected leaders. However, to the majority black population in Birmingham, this looks like a textbook political takeover where local voices are sidelined and an overwhelmingly Republican state legislature flexes their political will.
However, the City of Birmingham is fighting back. On the same day that the bill was signed, Mayor Randall Woodfin and the Birmingham City Council filed a federal lawsuit stating that SB330 violates the constitutional rights of Birmingham’s residents and constitutes “blatant racial discrimination.” Their case is strong as Birmingham accounts for more than 40% of the water utility’s customer base, with over 90% of residents living in Jefferson County, and the new law gives decision-making power to suburban residents with a fraction of the customers and state leaders who have no stake at all. The suburban areas now controlling Birmingham’s water are overwhelmingly white and have disproportionate influence over the operations of the regionalized water system.
The situation in Birmingham demonstrates a greater point about regionalized water systems. Water systems that serve multiple different jurisdictions are often considered ripe for regional governance models. However, when consolidation (the process of combining multiple local water utilities such as a city’s water provider and nearby suburban or rural systems into a single regional entity) occurs without proportional representation or when there are larger political incentives at play, this leaves cities like Birmingham vulnerable to outsider control. This bill is a prime example of how regionalization without accountability can become a tool for disenfranchisement.
In the lawsuit’s next steps, U.S. Chief District Judge Emily Marks has agreed to hear oral arguments from both sides of the debate and has scheduled a hearing for May 15th. Although the judge declined to issue an immediate restraining order, the court will now determine whether the law should be temporarily halted while the case proceeds. The battle in Birmingham is not just about who gets to sit on the board, it is about whether the residents of Birmingham still have the right to govern something as essential as water for a system they built.
