Two lawsuits filed question legality of Russellville Water and Sewer Board’s restoration policy

Two lawsuits were filed earlier this month against the Russellville Water and Sewer Board alleging the board’s policy for restoring water service violates Alabama state law.

William D. Ragan, Jr., and William V. Lawson, both rental property owners in Russellville, have separate lawsuits, both filed by Russellville attorney Evan Hargett with Rogers, Bowling & McReynolds, P.C. 

Lawson filed a declaratory judgment action, asking Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Brian Hamilton to find RWSB’s service restoration policy violative of state law and, as a result, unenforceable. 

Ragan’s case is a class action complaint, where he’s asking the Court to certify him as a class representative and Hargett as class counsel to move forward with civil cases on behalf of all RWSB customers impacted by the policy.

At the heart of both cases is a policy approved by the Russellville Water and Sewer Board at its November 12, 2024, meeting, regarding restoration of water service. 

The policy language reads: “The Water Works & Sewer Board of the City of Russellville does not provide or restore water service to an existing property with an unpaid balance.”

The RWSB is not alone in having such a policy. In fact, a source told the FFP the policy was modeled after an existing policy of another Alabama utility.

While it’s clear that if it’s the existing account holder seeking to reinstate water service, the utility can refuse to restore the account until a past due balance is paid. The question raised in these cases, though, is whether a delinquent balance from someone other than the applicant for service may constitute grounds to deny service to a new applicant.

When contacted for comment last week, Russellville attorney Danny McDowell, who represents the Water and Sewer Board, said he had not seen the lawsuits yet and could not comment.

Lawson owns rental property located at Mills Trailer Park in Russellville. The case centers around Lawson’s lot 6. Lot 6 was occupied by a former owner/tenant who received water and sewer service from the RWSB under a separate account in the previous owner/tenant’s name.

That previous owner/tenant vacated the property, leaving an unpaid balance on the account. When Lawson attempted to open a new account for lot 6, the lawsuit alleges, he was told the unpaid balance on the prior account must first be paid in full.

“That policy conditions the provision of essential utility service upon payment by a new customer or property owner of a debt they did not incur or receive any benefit from,” Hargett said in the complaint.

He maintains that, unless Lawson agreed, in writing, to assume the debt of the prior owner/tenant, he may not be compelled to satisfy that debt as a condition of service.

The fact situation in Ragan’s case is similar, but relates to service at a residence on Stuck Street SW in Russellville.

His complaint cites Code of Alabama Section 8-9-2(3) as support for his argument that the policy violates state law. That code section outlines certain agreements in Alabama that must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable. 

The legal question will be whether this provision prevents the Water and Sewer Board from enforcing its policy, and whether there existed an agreement that would trigger the language of the particular code section.

It’s a bit legally complicated, but that’s what lawsuits do—provide clarity in cases where there are genuine legal issues raised.

If certified as a class action by the Court, Ragan’s case would move forward on behalf of all RWSB customers alleging similar claims. If the class action is tried or settled, Ragan would be entitled to a sum of money as class representative and Hargett, as class counsel, an attorney’s fee from any judgment entered on behalf of all class members.

Alternatively, the Court could deny certification of Ragan’s case as a class action, and he would move forward individually, or the case could be dismissed if a legal determination is made that Ragan isn’t entitled to any damages and doesn’t have a valid claim under Alabama law.