Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Fayetteville hears technical review of quarry blasting and risks to Winchester Highway water tank; land-sale proposal moved toward council

November 07, 2025 | Fayetteville, Lincoln County, Tennessee


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Fayetteville hears technical review of quarry blasting and risks to Winchester Highway water tank; land-sale proposal moved toward council
Fayetteville officials discussed potential operational and economic risks tied to the city’s 500,000‑gallon industrial park water tank at a work session Thursday, and heard a consultant say routine quarry blasting nearby is unlikely to harm the concrete structure if monitoring and mitigation are used.

The city introduced an information item on a proposed sale or partial conveyance of property around the Winchester Highway water tank; the board referred the proposal to the regular council meeting for formal action. City and utility staff flagged contingencies and asked for further detail before any transfer.

Mr. Thomas, speaking for Fayetteville Public Utilities (FPU), said the concrete ground‑level tank was built in 1977 and is operated within a typical service range. He described how the pump station fills the tank at roughly 150 gallons per minute and said the tank supplies a large industrial customer cluster that accounts for significant monthly revenue: "…that's over $600,000 a month in revenue if they're not operating," he said, warning that a catastrophic failure or prolonged outage would force emergency operations and could require building a replacement tank, a process he estimated could take roughly 1½ years and cost about $2–2.5 million.

FPU asked the board to consider emergency response steps: whether the city has reliable isolation valves, how the distribution system could be reconfigured to preserve city service, and what cutbacks to county or industrial service would be required if the tank were offline. Thomas noted that tying together the feed lines at the tank base is a possible short‑term workaround but that such a bypass may not sustain required pressures for large industrial users.

Greg Harris, a professional geologist hired to evaluate subsurface conditions and vibration risk, summarized a ground‑penetrating radar survey and seismograph monitoring. Harris said the radar showed no voids beneath or adjacent to the tank and that recorded and predicted vibration levels from the borrow pit (about 600 feet away) are well below the state standard of 2 inches per second. He recommended remote seismograph monitoring and crack gauges on the tank so that any change would be detected quickly: "Everything can be monitored and reviewed, through seismograph records and also crack gauges that you can tell if there's any issues that are gonna manifest way before," Harris said.

Board members asked technical and policy questions about a factor of safety, mitigation measures that could reduce vibration (decking charges, electronic timing), insurance coverage, and whether a formal pre‑blast structural survey and emergency plan would be required. The geologist said blasting parameters can be adjusted and pointed out that concrete and large infrastructure tolerate substantially higher vibration limits than residential drywall; he cited examples in which tanks experienced no damage despite very close blasting when appropriate controls and monitoring were used.

Finance and administration staff clarified that the draft sale is an intent‑to‑sell referral and that detailed conveyance limits, appraisals and zoning or easement conditions would be negotiated later. The board agreed to move the item to the regular meeting for a formal vote on an intent to sell; the board did not commit to paying any appraisal until and unless the sale request is approved.

Why it matters: the industrial park tank supplies major commercial customers and some county service; a compromised tank would be both an operational emergency and a potential economic shock to the utility and city finances. The consultant’s report suggested monitoring and blast‑control measures reduce the technical risk, but board members sought additional assurances on contingency planning, instrumented monitoring and insurance before any property conveyance is finalized.

Next steps: the item was referred to the Tuesday/Wednesday council agenda for an intent‑to‑sell vote; staff and the consultant were asked to provide recommended monitoring/mitigation measures and to clarify emergency response steps and insurance coverage.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Tennessee articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI