Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20151230

Water use in Georgia by county for 2010 and water-use trends, 1985–2010

Abstract

Water use and water withdrawals and returns in 2010 are estimated for each major river basin, principal aquifer, water-planning region, and county in Georgia using data obtained from various Federal and State agencies and local sources. Offstream water use in 2010 is estimated for the categories of public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, mining, irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, and thermoelectric power. Water-use trends for 1985 to 2010 are also shown. The period between 2007 and 2010 was a challenging time economically and climatologically in Georgia. During that period, the United States was in the midst of a major recession, resulting in decreases in the manufacturing and construction industries and large increases in unemployment. During 2007, 2008, and the latter half of 2010, precipitation in Georgia was substantially below the 30-year norm. According to the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, nearly 9.7 million people lived in Georgia. The water for about 85 percent of that population was provided by public water suppliers. Estimated total water withdrawals from ground-water and surface-water sources were about 4,670 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 2010, about a 15-percent reduction from 2005 (5,471 Mgal/d). In 2010, thermoelectric-power facilities (2,046 Mgal/d) and public-supply uses (1,121 Mgal/d) accounted for 68 percent of all water withdrawn in Georgia. Surface-water withdrawals were greatest for thermoelectric-power generation (2,043 Mgal/d), whereas irrigation used the largest amount of groundwater (599 Mgal/d). Surface water provided 78 percent of the 1,121 Mgal/day withdrawn for public supply in 2010. Typically, counties in northern Georgia withdraw a larger percentage of water from surface water than groundwater sources; whereas, counties in the southern part of the State withdraw more water from groundwater sources. Historically, water withdrawals in Georgia were highest in 1980 (6,725 Mgal/d). By 1990, water use had decreased by 20 percent to 5,353 Mgal/d, but increased to 6,487 Mgal/d in 2000. By 2005, water use had decreased to an estimated 5,471 Mgal/d, and declined further to 4,670 Mgal/d in 2010—a 30-percent decrease since 1980. This decline was evident across all water-use categories, but was greatest for surface-water withdrawals by thermoelectric-power facilities. The estimated total water use per capita in 1985 (total withdrawals for all categories divided by total population) was about 850 gallons per day (gal/d), steadily decreasing to about 798 gal/d in 2000, and decreasing further to 460 gal/d in 2010. Although water use declined among all use categories during that 10-year period, most of the decline in per capita water use was caused by the large decrease in water used for thermoelectric-power generation. Throughout 1985–2010 water withdrawn for thermoelectric-power generation has constituted the largest volume of offstream water use in Georgia. Total withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation declined about 37 percent between 2000 and 2010, mostly due to the decommissioning of power plants in the State. Also during this period, several power plants were shut down and re-tooled to use natural gas-powered generators; thus, water withdrawals for cooling were substantially reduced. The decline in water withdrawals and use between 2005 and 2010 can probably be attributed to several factors working together during this period: (1) water conservation laws and policies along with advances in water-conservation technology; (2) the onset of a major recession in 2007; and (3) below average rainfall in 2007, 2008, and the latter half of 2010. Because of these factors, water withdrawn by public suppliers decreased by 4.8 percent (despite a nearly 11-percent increase in population served) and per capita use decreased by 19 percent between 2005 and 2010. About 2,225 Mgal/d of water was returned to Georgia streams and lakes in 2010 under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program administered by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. This amount is about 48 percent of the total water withdrawn from all sources in 2010. Water returns declined 39 percent between 1995 and 2010, mirroring the decline in water withdrawals during that period. In addition, land applications of treated wastewater increased steadily between 1995 and 2010.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 30.334953881988564° to 35.0120020431607° latitude; -85.594482421875° to -80.9033203125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephen J. Lawrence. 2015-12-16. Water use in Georgia by county for 2010 and water-use trends, 1985–2010. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151230

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona