Metro Roundup: Cahaba Riverkeeper, Cahaba River Society appeal judge's decision to dismiss challenge to BWWB

Following a judge’s decision to dismiss their challenge to the Birmingham Water Works Board earlier this month, the Cahaba River Society and Cahaba Riverkeeper, have filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court in what they say are ongoing efforts to enforce a settlement agreement intended to protect land crucial to safeguarding a major source of Birmingham’s drinking water. 

The motion to dismiss was granted after motions were filed by both the Birmingham Water Works Board and the state attorney general’s office. 

Cahaba Riverkeeper and the Cahaba River Society maintain that 6,000 acres of land, paid for by ratepayers, should already have permanent protections under the 2001 settlement agreement. However, the groups remain concerned and say the board did not record a valid conservation easement and has already sold a parcel of the land for a gas station and marketed additional parcels for sale.

 “The need to keep the Birmingham region's drinking water clean and water rates affordable, today and into the future, should not be dismissed,” said Beth Stewart of the Cahaba River Society , in a written statement. “We will press forward to protect the land that our water supply depends on. We urge the Birmingham Water Board and city leaders to do more to ensure the water supply is permanently protected, to uphold the promise made to ratepayers in the 2001 settlement agreement.”

"We have a simple ask of the Birmingham Water Works Board to do what they agreed to in 2001—to create a conservation easement for the land it is tasked to protect and to have an outside organization ensuring they do,” said Myra Crawford of Cahaba Riverkeeper. “The board decided they did not need oversight and could supervise themselves. They have not agreed to permanent protection of our primary source of drinking water, as they are allowing any purported protection to sunset in 30 years. The agreement the board wrote breaks their promises under the 2001 settlement agreement and does not comply with state law.”