Supporters of the move to regionalize the Birmingham Water Works Board and give more power to suburban areas are declaring victory after lawmakers in the state passed the final bill to expand membership of the board and end Birmingham’s dominance over the utility.

The changes are hailed as a miracle by some and a nightmare by others.

State Rep. Jim Carns, R-Vestavia Hills, who carried the legislation in the House of Representatives, called the law, “the miracle on Goat Hill,” a pun of the classic film title “Miracle on 34th Street.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Juandalynn Givan, whose district includes Birmingham, offered her own movie title: “I call it ‘Psycho in the City’ and I call it ‘Nightmare in the City,” she said.

Still unclear is what the changes will mean for water works customers spread across five counties including rates and customer service.

The bill goes into effect once signed by Gov. Kay Ivey signs it into law. New board members will then be appointed within 20 days.

And that’s all assuming that a lawsuit doesn’t slow down the process.

The new law changes the structure of the Birmingham Water Works Board, creating a seven-member authority dominated by appointees from outside the city of Birmingham and reducing city’s seats to two.

The Republican-sponsored bill from Sen. Dan Roberts, R-Mountain Brook easily passed both houses of the GOP-dominated legislature.

However, the restructuring of the board continues to ignite partisan-charged embers around the Birmingham area where urban and suburban political interests collide.

The law delivers the most significant changes to the state’s largest water utility since it was expanded a decade ago to create new seats for members from Blount and Shelby Counties.

“My concern is for the Birmingham ratepayers,” said Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodin in a written statement Thursday afternoon. “This bill is not in their best interest. The city does not own the water works nor operate it but the passage of this legislation clearly weakens the voice of a major portion of the utility’s ratepayers.”

Woodfin noted that he has criticized members of the water works board in the past, but said improvements were being made.

“That momentum has now been halted by this power grab from state lawmakers in Montgomery who clearly did not consider the best interest of our residents,” he said.

Givan, who is also a candidate for Birmingham mayor in the election this August, found a rare moment of solidarity with Woodfin, whose job she wants. She called the new law a “blatant overreach — a takeover of an authority that rightfully belongs to the City of Birmingham and its residents.”

“This move is not only absurd, it is dangerous, and its long-term consequences could be devastating in ways we may never fully recover from,” she said in a statement.

Givan also chided Birmingham’s city leadership, accusing them of not fighting hard enough against the legislation.

“I also cannot help but express my disappointment that more of Birmingham’s leadership did not publicly and forcefully join this fight when it mattered most,” Givan said. “Our unity could have made a difference.”

Despite the criticism from some, others like former state representative Paul Demarco, say the change is welcomed.

“It’s been a long time coming and 20 years in the making with all the efforts toward reform,’’ said Demarco, adding that customers complained when he was in office about rising water rates and unreliable customer service.

“I could not be more pleased that we are making the changes that we need to make to the water board,” he said.

Citing year-over-year increases in rates over time, Demarco said the new board will need to stop annual increases if they want to be successful.

Water works officials over the years have countered those arguments with the contention that those annual increases are partially dictated by bond debt and the utility’s long-term repayment plan.

George Munchus, a former longtime water works board member, said he was disappointed for the city to lose its dominance on the board, but he is not surprised.

Munchus, who often clashed with his board cohorts, said the board members themselves created an environment that spawned widespread outrage.

For example, he cited a now rescinded speakers’ policy that reduced time to two minutes along with other restrictions.

“This current board has created a hostile environment for the general public to speak with unfettered comments,” he said of the policy that was reversed after public outcry.

Munchus even called the original policy too restrictive.

“It has a chilling effect on people,” he said. “Many people have told me they don’t want to go there to speak because they don’t feel welcomed.”

Restructuring the board composition might be the beginning of other more serious concerns, warned Natalie Davis, professor emerita of political science at the former Birmingham-Southern College and a Birmingham political observer.

“Any Birmingham resident ought to be a little nervous,” Davis told AL.com. “Birmingham will pool the most money into the system, but will they get a return on their participation?”

Davis said a new board dominated by suburban areas might have less consideration in case of crisis based on who is in leadership.

“There may be a time when there may be water shortages, in which case, will Birmingham’s representation be fair?” she asked.

Longtime Birmingham attorney and political insider Emory Anthony agreed.

“Birmingham city leaders have a responsibility to fight the new law in court,” Anthony said.

“Some people believe the city leadership was late to the party as far as speaking out against this new direction with the water works,” Anthony said. “I would hope that the city of Birmingham would authorize their legal department to take legal action.”

Anthony, who has previously worked on legal cases with activists challenging action to seize assets of the utility, said the city’s chief attorney should challenge the constitutionality of the law.

“That’s the appropriate step at this point,” Anthony said.

Woodfin’s office did not answer AL.com questions regarding possible litigation.