Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell Crossville: raising Meadow Park Lake 15 feet could supply 2.6M gallons/day but needs $60M, years of permits
Summary
Consultants recommended raising Meadow Park Lake about 15 feet to add roughly 2.6 million gallons per day of firm raw‑water supply; they estimated all‑in costs near $60 million, described major wetland/stream mitigation needs, and outlined a permitting timeline that could stretch into mid‑2027 for approvals.
A multi‑agency consultant team told the council that among feasible regional water‑supply options, raising Meadow Park Lake by roughly 15 feet and coupling that change with harvesting water from existing permits offers the most practicable way to secure about 2.6 million gallons per day of additional safe (firm) yield over the next 50 years.
The consultant (presenting as the project lead) explained the tradeoffs the Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) will weigh when permitting projects that affect wetlands and streams: the federal/state regulators require the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and robust compensation for any inundation or stream impacts.
Project highlights offered to council:
- Yield and target: model runs show that a 15‑foot raise in Meadow Park Lake storage is sufficient to deliver the roughly 2.6 MGD additional firm yield the county will likely need over 50 years, using water harvesting and storage rather than relying solely on transfers.
- Environmental footprint: consultants estimated approximately 8,506 linear feet of stream would be affected, ~21.6 acres of wetlands impacted and roughly 195 additional acres inundated at the 15‑foot raise level. Those impacts require a permittee‑responsible mitigation program; the consultant team recommended a mitigation plan and partner (University of Tennessee) to deliver credits and restoration.
- Cost and schedule: consultants presented an order‑of‑magnitude total project cost of about $60 million (engineering, mitigation, permitting and construction). They outlined near‑term funding needs — a contract and mitigation plan work estimated at ~$300,000 now with an additional ~$100,000 budgeted for responses to regulator comments — and a permitting schedule that targets a final Corps/TDEC decision by mid‑2027 if submissions, public notice and responses proceed on the proposed timeline.
- Comparison to alternatives: the team summarized that long pipelines to other reservoirs or building a new distant well field would be substantially more expensive and have higher operational (energy) costs; those options were estimated at well over $100 million and were judged less practicable.
Council discussion focused on next steps, property acquisition and how the city would stage bonding or financing if the council elects to proceed past the application phase. Consultants emphasized that Corps permits typically include performance timelines (often initially three years) but that extensions are common when progress is shown; the council will need to decide whether to commit bond authorization or other finance steps while permitting is underway.
What happens next: consultants recommended contracting for the mitigation plan (the next critical deliverable) and preparing a partial permit application and public‑notice package. Staff estimated the city would need to commit the mitigation planning funds in the coming weeks to meet the proposed permit submission schedule.
