Copyright AL.com
A fight over power, politics, and pipes threatens $183 million in federal funding to replace Birmingham’s aging lead water lines. Central Alabama Water needs the city’s sign-off to secure the money, but after state lawmakers stripped Birmingham of control of the utility earlier this year, Mayor Randall Woodfin said his support hinges on several conditions — a move that has some board leaders crying foul and calling it “ludicrous.” “It looks like he’s holding the Birmingham residents and ratepayers hostage — just like what’s going on in Washington right now,” Philip Wiedmeyer, vice chairman of the water board said at the meeting Monday evening, comparing the action to the federal showdown between Democrats and Republicans. Wiedmeyer, a Republican appointee to the water board, appears to blame Democrats. Woodfin is a Democrat. “Those customers are being held hostage by the city of Birmingham,” he said. A Federal Opportunity — With Strings The $183 million proposal would fund the replacement of lead pipes in neighborhoods across Birmingham city limits and beyond, addressing decades of aging infrastructure and environmental concerns. The financing, offered through the Alabama Drinking Water Authority using federal Environmental Protection Agency funds, includes both low-interest and forgivable loans designed to accelerate the removal of toxic pipes. But there’s a catch: The water board can’t access the money without Birmingham’s participation. The state authority wants guarantees from the city that it would honor the loan’s terms if Birmingham wins back control of the utility. The city filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legislature’s taking over the water works. The city would have to agree to serve as a guarantor for the loan, ensuring repayment should the utility default, and has become the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering power struggle between the city and the regional water authority. How We Got Here Central Alabama Water was created earlier this year after the Alabama Legislature essentially eliminated the Birmingham Water Works Board, restructuring the former water system by transferring majority control to suburban and county appointees. The move reduced Birmingham’s dominant representation on the board to just two seats — a dramatic shift for a utility that serves tens of thousands of city residents - more than in any of the outlying areas that now have more representation. Birmingham leaders called the change a political power grab and filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality. The case remains pending, and until it is resolved, the city and the utility operate under an uneasy truce marked by lawsuits, public disputes, and now, a multimillion-dollar stalemate. Woodfin’s Conditions Woodfin, in a recent letter to the utility, said he would support the city backing of the loans on three conditions: A halt on rate increases, creating a law department to control legal spending and setting 30 percent participation goals for minority participation in construction projects. Woodfin said those conditions are meant to safeguard ratepayers and ensure equity in how the massive public investment is spent. Woodfin’s terms further reveal the ideological split on the seven-member board that is largely based on political party, geography and race. Five of the current members are white and live outside Birmingham and were appointed by Republican leaders. The other two members are Black and were appointed by Woodfin and council members in the largely Democratic city. “That’s not politics. That’s common sense,” Woodfin wrote on Facebook. “If the water works wants the City’s support, they’ve got to show they can manage the people’s money with transparency and respect.” ‘Ludicrous,’ Say Board Members Water board members Monday decried Woodfin’s conditions as political posturing at the expense of residents. Wiedmeyer, one of several recently appointed suburban appointees to the board, said the mayor’s stance jeopardizes a once-in-a-generation infrastructure opportunity. Board attorney Shan Paden echoed that sentiment during the board’s recent meeting, accusing Woodfin of using the loan process to get concessions that have nothing to do with the safety of residents. Paden noted that most of the work would be in Birmingham. The first phase includes west Birmingham beginning in the Wylam neighborhood and expanding into Five Points West. “Having the lead pipes replaced for their residents isn’t enough,” Paden said. Paden said the rates won’t be increased because the agency will have money. Also, he said there are already provisions for minority participation in projects. But he didn’t know the details Monday. Finally, he said Woodfin’s request for a legal department would not save money. “I think it’s ludicrous for the mayor to ask that, but that’s just my legal opinion,” Paden said. In the community, Woodfin’s position is supported by some vocal Birmingham residents and activists. Members of the Committee to Save Jefferson County gathered in front of Birmingham City Hall last week to urge Woodfin to hold firm to his demands. That group is led by William Muhammad, a past member of the Birmingham Water Works Board. Also, Jefferson County Commissioner Sheila Tyson, a member of the water board from Birmingham, offered her own analysis on talk radio. “I said that we need our lead pipes changed, that’s a good thing for Birmingham,” Tyson said on the Gary Richardson Morning Show on WJLD 104.1 FM last week. “But the way they’re trying to do it ain’t right. Birmingham has got them in a chokehold and they ought to squeeze as tight as they can.” While board members Monday assailed and dismissed Woodfin’s proposal, the board discussed a proposal to hire another law firm to negotiate an end to the stalemate. The proposal came from attorney Rod Kanter, a partner with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm - the same firm that represents the state authority that oversees the loan package. “He’s proposing that he try to work through it between us and Birmingham to get to the point where both sides say yes,” Paden said of Kanter’s proposal. Lawyers under the proposal would be paid between $650 and $395 an hour. “The authority is not going to pay him to do so and he wants assurance that he’s going to do so if he takes on this task of trying to bring the two parties together,” Paden said. But board member Bill Morris of Leeds questioned why the utility’s current team of outside lawyers could not handle any proposed discussion with the city. Kanter’s proposal was universally rejected by the board, including both the suburban GOP-appointed majority and the two Birmingham-appointed Democrats. “I don’t think it makes any sense to retain this person to do anything for us,” said board member Jarvis Patton of Birmingham. “Until there’s a meeting of the minds between the water works board and the city of Birmingham, I don’t think anything is going to happen.”
