Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr96483

Ground-water resources of the lower-middle Chattahoochee River basin in Georgia and Alabama, and middle Flint River basin in Georgia - Subarea 3 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basins

Abstract

Drought conditions in the 1980's focused attention on the multiple uses of the surface- and ground-water resources in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River basins in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. State and Federal agencies also have proposed projects that would require additional water resources and revise operating practices within the river basins. The existing and proposed water projects create conflicting demands for water by the States and emphasize the problem of water-resource allocation. This study was initiated to describe ground-water availability in the lower-middle Chattahoochee River basin of Georgia and Alabama; and middle Flint River basin of Georgia, Subarea 3 of the ACF and ACT River basins, and to estimate the possible effects of increased ground-water use within the basin. Subarea 3 encompasses about 6,180 square miles (mi 2) of the Coastal Plain Province in southwestern Georgia and southeastern Alabama. About 55 percent of the area is drained by the Chattahoochee River, with the remainder drained by the Flint River. The drainage area of the Chattahoochee River is divided almost equally between Alabama and Georgia. Subarea 3 is underlain by complexly interbedded sedimentary strata that dip gently to the southeast, underlying the Floridan aquifer system to the south. The strata comprise numerous porous-media aquifers and confining units that crop out in the northern part of Subarea 3 in generally northeast-trending bands. The conceptual model described for this study qualitatively subdivides the ground-water flow system into local (shallow), intermediate, and regional (deep) flow regimes. Ground-water discharge to tributaries mainly is from local and intermediate flow regimes and varies seasonally. The regional flow regime probably approximates steady-state conditions and discharges chiefly to major drains such as the Chattahoochee River. Ground-water discharge to major drains originates from all flow regimes. Mean-annual baseflow is about 1,618 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) in the Chattahoochee River; and about 1,812 ft 3 /s in the Flint River. Of the 1,618 ft 3 /s baseflow in the Chattahoochee, about 37 percent is discharge from Alabama and 63 percent is discharge from Georgia. Near the end of the drought of 1954, baseflow was about 579 ft 3 /s in the Chattahoochee River; and about 963 ft 3 /s in the Flint River. Of the 579 ft 3 /s drought baseflow in the Chattahoochee River, about 15 percent was from Alabama and 85 percent from Georgia. Baseflow in Subarea 3 during the drought of 1954 was about 45 percent of mean-annual baseflow. Near the end of the drought of 1986, baseflow was about 449 ft 3 /s in the Chattahoochee River and about 498 ft 3 /s in the Flint River. Of the 449 ft 3 /s baseflow in the Chattahoochee River, about 16 percent was discharge from Alabama and 84 percent was discharge from Georgia. Baseflow in Subarea 3 during the 1986 drought was about 28 percent of mean-annual baseflow. The potential exists for the development of ground-water resources on a regional scale throughout Subarea 3. Estimated ground-water use in 1990 was about 2.2 percent of the estimated mean-annual baseflow, and ranged from about 4.9 to 8.0 percent of baseflows near the end of the droughts of 1954 and 1986, respectively. Because groundwater use in Subarea 3 represents a relatively minor percentage of ground-water recharge, even a large increase in ground-water use in Subarea 3 in one State is likely to have little effect on ground-water and surface-water occurrence in the other. Indications of long-term ground-water level declines were not observed; however, the number and distribution of observation wells having long-term water-level measurements in Subarea 3 are insufficient to draw conclusions.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 30.221132° to 35.008028° latitude; -88.473227° to -80.841913° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gregory C. Mayer. 1997. Ground-water resources of the lower-middle Chattahoochee River basin in Georgia and Alabama, and middle Flint River basin in Georgia - Subarea 3 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basins. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr96483

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