Leaders at Central Alabama Water want a judge who once represented the system as a lawyer to step aside from a lawsuit that could determine whether the utility is forced to bring back fluoride to its customers.
Lawyers for the utility Wednesday afternoon filed a motion asking Judge Frederic Bolling to recuse himself just a day before he is set to hold a hearing on the lawsuit brought by the city of Birmingham.
Water board lawyers argue that Bolling has frequently shown his disdain for the utility.
“A reasonable person could question your Honor’s impartiality considering the well-publicized prior dealings involving BWWB/CAW as counsel, adversarial counsel, and judge,” they wrote.
“Even if your Honor has no actual bias or prejudice for or against a party in this case, a perceived bias by a reasonable person is sufficient to require recusal.”
Before winning an election to the bench, Bolling worked on some cases for the utility as outside lawyer when it was known as the Birmingham Water Works Board.
The relationship did not end well.
“You are not representing anyone but your own greed and I pray that karma and justice finds it(s) way to your doorstep,” Bolling wrote to attorney Mark Parnell in 2021.
He ended the message with an ironic salutation: “Be blessed.”
Bolling became a judge in 2025. He recused himself from a water works case after his earlier email resurfaced and was published by AL.com.
Then, on March 20, CEO Jeffrey Thompson announced in a press release that the utility would immediately end fluoride for all customers.
The move was met with criticism by some and then a lawsuit from the city demanding that fluoride be restored.
Water system leaders responded by saying that most customers had not received fluoride for several years because previously leaders failed to repair broken infrastructure.
Bolling could decide what happens next.
Water utility lawyers James W. Porter, Reginald D. McDaniel and Shan Paden argue that even the language in Bollings’s initial order Monday contained words that many would consider biased.
Bolling was blunt in his criticism of CAW in his seven-page order Monday when he gave the city a victory with a temporary restraining order against the water utility and ordered them to resume providing fluoride for now.
He accused them of “blatant disregard” of the state law that requires 90-days notice before changing fluoride in water systems.
Bolling in his order Monday also chided the utility for its spending and recent layoffs of employees. Bolling noted that CAW had recently laid off 135 employees while continuing to pay the fees of the utility’s high-priced lawyers.
“However, if costs would be a factor that the Court could consider, the Court would eagerly await what argument could be made concerning costs, that would justify placing public health at risk, while administrative salaries continue to balloon, front-line workers have been terminated by the hundreds, and salaries for legal services have for years been inflated, to include months when legal services billing has exceeded $100,000 or more per month,” Bolling wrote.
“A reasonable person would conclude your Honor is relying on information outside the record to inform his rulings and that the unsupported and disparaging statements made about CAW reflect a lack of impartiality,” Central Alabama Water lawyers wrote Wednesday.
A hearing on Birmingham’s motion to restore fluoride is set Thursday at noon – if Bolling remains on the case.
Original article online at: https://www.al.com/news/2026/04/water-system-lawyers-want-judge-removed-from-fluoride-case-over-past-disputes-disparaging-remarks.html