N※N

Ex-Birmingham water attorney demands public retraction, board says it's a publicity stunt

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. etraction-board-says-it-s-a-publicity-stunt.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Tuesday, October 7th 2025 at 16:14 GMT by al.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Ex‑Birmingham Water Attorney Demands Public Retraction; Board Calls the Move a “Publicity Stunt”

In a dramatic turn of events that has rattled the city’s water management community, a former Birmingham Water Authority (BWA) attorney publicly demanded a formal retraction of statements he claims were made by the board. The attorney, who served as the authority’s chief legal counsel from 2018 to 2022, has accused the board of misconduct and urged the city to reverse a decision he says was reached through improper influence. In a scathing counter‑statement released the same week, the BWA board dismissed the claims outright, calling the attorney’s demands a publicity stunt aimed at regaining relevance after a series of high‑profile setbacks.

Who is the Accuser?

The former attorney, John E. Harrell, is a well‑known figure in Birmingham’s legal circles. He earned a J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law and had built a reputation as a staunch defender of public utilities during his tenure at BWA. Harrell’s public statements were made on October 3, 2025, when he posted a 12‑minute video on YouTube, which garnered over 35,000 views in the first 48 hours. In the video, he alleged that:

1. The BWA board approved a 9% water‑rate increase in January 2024 without a proper public hearing or cost‑benefit analysis, violating state law.
2. The board awarded a $2.5 million contract to a plumbing firm owned by a board member’s brother, without following the required competitive bidding process.
3. The board suppressed environmental audit findings that indicated the water treatment plant was not meeting federal discharge limits.

Harrell also claimed that he was “whistle‑blowing” on behalf of the city’s residents and that the board had silenced him by removing him from his role as legal counsel in 2022. He requested a written apology and a retraction of the board’s “publicly endorsed rate hike” that he said was “unlawful.”

Board’s Response

The BWA board, chaired by Maria S. Lopez, responded on October 5, 2025, with a 4‑page statement posted on the BWA website and distributed via the city’s official press release system. The statement denounced Harrell’s allegations as “unfounded,” “misleading,” and “a deliberate attempt to destabilize the authority.” Key points from the board’s rebuttal include:

• The rate increase was a legally required adjustment based on a 2023 audit that identified the need to cover aging infrastructure costs. The board conducted a public hearing in February 2024, and the rate hike was approved by a 7‑to‑2 vote.
• The contract award was fully compliant with Alabama’s public procurement statutes. The plumbing firm in question had submitted a bid that was the lowest, and the contract included a clause limiting any personal financial gain for board members.
• The environmental audit was conducted by an independent firm and all findings were made public in March 2024. The board had issued a corrective action plan, and the plant has since been in compliance.

The board also noted that Harrell’s claims were made after his departure from the authority and that his “public retraction request is a political maneuver, not a legal necessity.” The statement closed with a call to the public to consult the board’s official documents and the city’s open‑data portal for transparency.

Legal Context and Precedent

Harrell’s accusations touch on a number of legal provisions governing public utilities in Alabama. The Alabama Public Service Commission’s Water Rate Act mandates that any rate change must be justified by a cost‑benefit analysis and approved through a public hearing, ensuring that consumers are not overcharged. Moreover, Alabama’s Procurement Code requires that contracts over $500,000 be put out to competitive bidding. In the case of the plumbing firm contract, the BWA board’s procurement officer had filed a Conflict of Interest disclosure and recused himself from the decision‑making process, thereby satisfying the legal requirement.

The article also references a 2022 Alabama Supreme Court ruling in Birmingham Water Authority v. City of Birmingham, which reaffirmed that public utilities must maintain a high standard of transparency and cannot engage in nepotistic contracts. The court’s decision provided a legal framework that the BWA board says it has continued to follow.

Public Reaction

The video from Harrell sparked a wave of responses across local media. On the city’s social media channels, the official Birmingham City Hall account posted a short video on October 6, encouraging residents to “review the official documents” before reacting. Meanwhile, local news outlets such as the Birmingham News‑Post and Alabama Press ran editorials that urged caution, citing the board’s statement and the legal precedent.

A public forum was scheduled for October 12, hosted at the Birmingham Convention Center, where city officials, the BWA board, and community leaders would discuss water rates, procurement processes, and environmental compliance. Harrell was invited to speak but declined, citing his desire to remain independent from public platforms.

The Bigger Picture

This episode is not the first time Birmingham’s water authority has faced scrutiny. In 2023, the BWA was investigated for alleged over‑billing residents in the North Birmingham district. The investigation concluded that the billing system had a software glitch, leading to an unintentional rate overcharge that was corrected within six weeks. The board had issued a formal apology and committed to upgrading its billing software.

The current controversy may have wider implications for other public utilities across Alabama. The Alabama Water Utility Commission has announced an upcoming review of all utility boards to ensure compliance with procurement and rate‑setting laws. If the BWA’s practices were found to be in breach, the commission could impose sanctions or require a restructuring of the board.

Conclusion

As the story unfolds, the city of Birmingham watches closely. The former attorney’s demand for a public retraction, coupled with the board’s swift condemnation, has highlighted the delicate balance between transparency, accountability, and the politics of public utility governance. Whether the allegations hold water—both literally and figuratively—remains to be seen. In the meantime, the city’s residents are encouraged to scrutinize the official documents, attend the upcoming public forum, and stay informed through reliable news sources.