In a hearing on Thursday, Mayor Randall Woodfin and the City of Birmingham lost their latest case against Central Alabama Water (CAW).
Circuit Judge Frederic Allen Bolling dissolved the temporary protective order (TPO) he put in place on Monday that demanded the utility to bring back online its four fluoridation systems, three of which had been offline for years, and one of which the utility had ordered was not in safe working condition.
On Monday, the initial TPO was issued.
"In case the above is not clear, the Court Orders that, unless the mandatory notice was provided to the State Health Officer, in compliance with state law, all water that does not contain the recommended levels of fluoride, be brought into compliance with all deliberate speed," the order added. "If equipment needs to be ordered, ORDER IT. If extra work hours need to be approved, APPROVE THEM," the order read.
SEE: In a scathing order, judge issues Central Alabama Water to bring fluoride back online
Central Alabama Water argued its case against the order with five points in an 11-page filing submitted ahead of the hearing on Thursday.
Argument as follows:
First, it was issued in violation of Rule 65, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. ARCP Rule 65(b) requires that prior to a TRO being granted without written or oral notice that (1) the motion be supported by specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint and (2) that the applicant’s attorney certify to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be given. The City never certified its efforts to provide notice to Defendants before seeking ex parte relief, as Rule 65(b) expressly requires. No affidavit or verified complaint was filed. No Defendant was present or represented at any hearing. No security bond was posted. To the knowledge of the undersigned at the time of filing, the TRO has not been served on any Defendant through any legally sufficient process.
Second, the City lacks standing to enforce Ala. Code Section 22-23-21. The statute provides no private right of action for municipalities.
Third, CAW complied with Ala. Code Section 22-23-21. CAW provided notice on March 12, 2026, that in 90 days, the temporary discontinuance would become permanent. The notice was filed in addition to contemporaneous written notifications provided to ADPH and ADEM when facilities went offline for fluoride, stretching back to 2023.
Fourth, it is impossible to comply with the TRO. Three facilities have had no functioning fluoridation equipment for two to three years, and the fourth operates with forty-five-year-old equipment past the end of its useful life. A 2024 Filter Plant Needs Assessment Report issued by CAW’s prior engineering company found significant issues with the fluoride systems at all four CAW filter plants. An engineering report issued by Jacobs Engineering, CAW’s consulting engineer, estimates that it would take 315 days and an estimated $3,740,000.00 to implement a stand-alone operational fluoride system sufficient to comply with the Court’s TRO.
Fifth, the City fails to satisfy the elements required for injunctive relief.
In addition to the motion to dissolve the temporary protective order, CAW also filed a motion asking the judge to recuse himself. The judge denied that motion.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected]
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning or become a member to gain access to exclusive content and 1819 News merch.
