The two sides in the county’s long-running water dispute came out of mediation Monday speaking in general terms about where litigation over control of the water department will end up.

Getting specifics out of the interested parties is difficult as long as three lawsuits over the issue pend in local and state court. But when given the liberty to speak hypothetically — about what could happen, should the suits be resolved in a best-case scenario — the participants speak a little more freely.

County commission chairman James Graves, who is one of several plaintiffs in the most hotly-contested of the water suits, said Saturday there is at least one scenario that, should mediation talks proceed along a certain path, could lead to the dissolution of the two controversial water boards the commission created in late April. That, he added, would leave county government free to consider a utility board arrangement starting from a clean slate.

“The boards have to die,” said Graves. “They have to go away. But what we are receptive to is that we would go out — make an announcement; hold meetings throughout the county; gauge that, if it is the response of the people that they want a board over the water department, then by George, we’ll make it happen. But this time, it would be explored fully and organized better. That’s the only way we will consider it.”

The current mediation, which is likely to be extended beyond the Dec. 14 deadline originally ordered by the Supreme Court of Alabama, stems from an appeal made by the defendants — South Cumberland Cooperative District (SCCD) and the Governmental Utility Services Corporation of Cullman County (GUSC) before the high court — of a May circuit court injunction instructing the two boards to relinquish control and ownership of the county water department to the county commission.

The boards, which had been created by a different lineup of county commissioners at a contentious regular meeting on April 27, had enjoyed only a few days of uncontested access to the department, its assets, revenues and employees, before Circuit Judge Don Hardeman issued the first of several orders enjoining the boards to allow the county to retain control of the department until all the original lawsuit — filed against the boards by Graves and six other county residents — run its course.

In order for the present incarnations of the utility boards to disappear, their current lineup would have to be on board for the change. And, said SCCD board member Dennis Haynes Saturday, that sort of compromise would require some concessions from the county commission.

“That question came up quite late in the day [in mediation] Monday,” said Haynes. “It became obvious earlier in the day that they [the plaintiffs] were almost obsessed with the fact that we go away; that the boards totally disappear. If everything that was on the table Monday occurs, the South Cumberland board and the GUSC — the four of us who now serve on those boards — would submit letters of resignation.”

“But,” he added, “those letters would be held until some other things occur: the city [of Cullman] would have to open their books to those who represent us, so that we can have satisfaction that the cost of water is being calculated fairly and according to the [city-county water purchase] contract. Those who represent the board would have to be able to go to the city on the county’s behalf as well, and would be given access to the city’s accountant, who would then be instructed to deal with us clearly and openly in order for that answer to be obtained.”

Graves could not directly address the likelihood of meeting such conditions by following the exact path Haynes described, but offered: “I think you’re going to find that the Cullman County Commission will do anything that we can do — I stress, that we can do — to make [mediation] a success. Anything that’s necessary, we will do. But I want something for certain from the other side before we reach the point of talking about that in detail.”

The parties, along with their attorneys, met Monday at the Cullman Civic Center in a day-long session that concluded without a resolution. Phil Adams, an attorney with Auburn-based Adams, Umbach, Davidson & White, LLP, is serving as mediator in the ongoing negotiations.

The original suit, filed May 7, accused two county commissioners — since voted out of office — of violating state open meetings laws, jeopardizing county finances, wasting county assets and conspiring to take corporate action outside the view of the public. In addition to the county commission, which has since been realigned as a plaintiff in the case, the suit named both the SCCD and the GUSC as defendants.

The county commission is represented at the talks by county attorney Rusty Turner; the individual plaintiffs are being represented by local attorneys Steve Griffith and Todd McLeroy. The SCCD and GUSC are currently being represented by Tim Fulmer and David Schoel of Birmingham-based Natter and Fulmer, P.C.

‰ Benjamin Bullard can be reached by e-mail at bbullard@cullmantimes.com or by telephone at 734-2131 ext. 270.