Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tanners Creek topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrenceburg council denies Tanners Creek soil‑borrow permit amid aquifer safety concerns
Summary
The Lawrenceburg City Council voted unanimously Nov. 17 to deny an excavation/soil‑borrow permit for the Tanners Creek ash‑pond site after residents and consultants flagged past violations, leachate‑system outages and potential risk to a nearby aquifer; the decision follows reviews by IDEM and third‑party consultants.
Lawrenceburg City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 17 to deny Permit Application 20250072, a request from Tanners Creek Development LLC to excavate soil from a former ash‑pond site and use it for landfill capping and other projects.
Council members and residents said the site sits near the city’s aquifer and pointed to inspection reports and past operational failures. Dylan Little, who moved to deny the permit, asked during the meeting, “How do we tell our constituents that we're okay 12 foot of clay on top of their drinking water?”
Applicant representatives presented a revised plan that would create a wetland and produce roughly 200,000 cubic yards of clay to help cap an existing ash landfill. Eric Lang, the applicant’s consultant, described the design as a marshy upland area that could link into nearby trails and provide material for the landfill cap. Lang said the revised grading would keep water ponding at an elevated elevation and that the approach would reduce off‑site truck trips.
Enviro Analytics project manager James Clendon, who participated in the discussion, acknowledged prior inspection findings and said pumps that had been out of service during a 2024 inspection are now back in operation: “The pumps are back in service.” Council members and third‑party consultant Atlas told the council they were not convinced the applicant’s monitoring and long‑term excavation plan addressed risks to groundwater or archaeological and wetland concerns.
City staff recapped Atlas’ review and said Atlas concluded the excavation plan lacked sufficient monitoring, groundwater wells, sediment and erosion controls and a plan for archaeological features. The council heard residents cite a history of violations at the property, missing annual reviews, and specific operational gaps including leachate‑pump outages and inconsistent water‑quality testing.
After extended questioning of the applicant and staff and review of consultant findings, Dylan Little moved to deny the permit application; the motion was seconded and passed on a unanimous voice vote.
What the council did and what’s next: the motion to deny (as recorded) ends the review of Application 20250072 at the council level. City staff and the applicant may pursue follow‑up options available under local rules or state permitting processes; that pathway was not decided during the Nov. 17 meeting.
