Upper Flint Regional Water Plan (2011)
Historical edition. This independent guide describes the September 2011 plan. It is not an official state publication or a statement of current requirements.
The Upper Flint plan documents the first regional approach to balancing an agricultural economy with river-flow and aquifer concerns. It is useful for examining how conservation, storage proposals, measurement and better resource information were combined, and for comparing the council's interpretation of model results with the assessment itself.
Document at a glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Document | Upper Flint Regional Water Plan |
| Edition | September 2011; adopted-plan file recovered from the former water-planning website |
| Responsible council | Upper Flint Regional Water Planning Council |
| Length | 105 PDF pages, including front matter |
| Planning horizon | 2050 |
| Historical filename | UFL_Adopted_RWP_000.pdf |
Area and planning context
The edition covers 13 counties and 48 towns and cities. Most of the region lies in the ACF system, with small areas in the Ocmulgee and Suwannee basins. Its physical setting spans the Fall Line, and the 2011 description emphasizes rural land use, farming and forestry as important context for water demand.
What makes this edition useful
The historical assessment discussed a significant modeled flow concern at Bainbridge in the wider Flint system, alongside different results at Montezuma. The aquifer discussion distinguishes the Claiborne from the Upper Floridan in the Dougherty Plain and emphasizes the influence of groundwater use on streamflows. The council called for better information and questioned aspects of the flow criteria, while recommending conservation and investigation of supply and storage measures.
The discussion above is based on the plan's executive summary. Read the archived source.
What the document contains
Agricultural demand and regional change
The water-use inventory identifies irrigation as the leading demand sector, while the forecasts also examine municipal, industrial and wastewater changes through 2050. This supports comparisons between historical expectations and later development.
Hydrologic connections
The resource assessment looks at river flows, aquifer availability and water quality. Its treatment of groundwater is geographically specific and connects pumping decisions with conditions in the Flint system.
Selected practices and priorities
The council identified 18 practices across demand management, supply and flow augmentation, water returns and quality. Storage evaluation and improved agricultural withdrawal measurement are prominent topics in the executive discussion.
Implementation and evidence
The plan describes steps, responsibilities, schedules, costs, funding options and benchmarks. Recommendations to the state include continued planning support and work to improve the data and criteria used in future assessment cycles.
What you can use it for
- Agricultural water-management history. Investigate how the first planning cycle combined efficiency, measurement and supply-side proposals.
- ACF basin comparisons. Read alongside Lower Flint-Ochlockonee and Middle Chattahoochee to identify coordinated concerns and recommendations.
- Assessment-method research. Separate the model's findings from the council's interpretation and its requests for additional scientific work.
These are suggested research uses of the document, not claims that the council produced it for each of these specific audiences.
A practical reading route
- Start with the executive summary. PDF pages 11, 13, 14, 15 contain the region-specific context and findings used in this guide. PDF page numbers include covers and may differ from the printed labels.
- Use the resource inventory and forecasting chapters to identify the source, user sector, baseline and scenario behind the issue you are studying.
- Follow the capacity comparison into the selected management practices. Read the implementation material before describing a proposal as a commitment, a funded project or a completed intervention.
- Consult the bibliography and referenced technical studies for modeling methods and supporting assumptions. A referenced study or supplementary memorandum is not necessarily included in the main PDF.
Useful questions to take into the source:
- Which assessment location is associated with the stated flow concern?
- What assumptions connect groundwater use with surface-water effects?
- Which recommendations seek action now, and which seek further evaluation?
How to interpret the historical findings
The river location at which a model reports a concern may lie downstream of the activity being discussed. Keep the regional boundary, river-basin boundary and assessment location distinct, and do not interpret a storage recommendation as an approved construction project.
Keep observations, forecasts and recommendations separate. A projection for 2050 records what the 2011 planning exercise expected under its assumptions; it does not establish what has happened since. For present-day decisions, check the applicable later plan, source studies and agency guidance.
Read or obtain the original
- Internet Archive: view the September 2011 PDF.
- Internet Archive: open the archived PDF directly. This is the external archived copy, not a PDF hosted by this independent site.
- EPD: official regional plan catalog. For current planning, use this official catalog; its newer editions are separate documents.
- If an older copy is unavailable, ask Georgia EPD at water.planning@dnr.ga.gov for the September 2011 edition.
The archived PDF was retrieved and opened successfully on 31 October 2026. External archives may later change their availability.
May 2011 consultation version
An earlier consultation-stage file was also recovered: 20110502_UFL_FinalWDCP.pdf (81 PDF pages). It is a different edition from the September plan described above. This guide does not assert that the draft and adopted recommendations are identical.
Open the May 2011 consultation-stage PDF in the Internet Archive. Use this version if you are following a citation to the initial recommendations or studying the consultation process. Compare the two originals before attributing a change to the public-review period.
Related document guides
About this guide
This page is an original editorial description and reading guide. It does not reproduce the report's text, tables, maps or photographs. The document title identifies the source; links lead to third-party repositories or the official planning program. This website is independently operated and is not affiliated with Georgia EPD or the regional council.