United States Department of Agriculture

Quantifying the Role of National Forest System Lands 

in Providing Surface Drinking Water Supply for the 

Southern United States

Peter Caldwell, Corinne Muldoon, Chelcy Ford Miniat, Erika Cohen, Suzanne Krieger, 

Ge Sun, Steven McNulty, and Paul V. Bolstad
Forest Service

Southern Research Station

GTR-SRS-197 

September 2014

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

The Authors:

Peter Caldwell, Research Hydrologist, Coweeta Hydrologic 

Laboratory, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Otto, NC 28763; Corinne Muldoon, 

Biological Science Technician, University of Minnesota, Otto, 

NC 28763; Chelcy Ford Miniat, Project Leader, Coweeta 

Hydrologic Laboratory, Southern Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Otto, NC 28763; 

Erika Cohen, Resource Information Specialist, Eastern Forest 

Environmental Threat Assessment Center, Southern Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Raleigh, 

NC 27606; Suzanne Krieger, Regional Hydrology Program 

Manager, Region 8, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Atlanta, GA 30309; Ge Sun, Research Hydrologist, 

Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Raleigh, NC 27606; Steven McNulty, Director, 

Southeast Regional Climate Hub, Southern Research Station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Raleigh, NC 

27606; Paul V. Bolstad, Professor, Department of Forest 

Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Cover photo

The Chattahoochee River at the Devil’s Shoals, 

East Palisades Park, Fulton County, Georgia. 

All photos courtesy of USDA Forest Service unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the 

material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the USDA Forest Service or the University of Minnesota.
Quantifying the Role of National Forest System Lands 

in Providing Surface Drinking Water Supply 

for the Southern United States

Peter Caldwell, Corinne Muldoon, Chelcy Ford Miniat, Erika Cohen, 

Suzanne Krieger, Ge Sun, Steven McNulty, and Paul V. Bolstad

High Falls, Talladega National Forest. (James H. Miller, 

USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org)

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

The Forest–Water–People Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Forest Service Protection of Water Resources through Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Forests and Water in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

How Much Do People Depend on Water from Southern Forests? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Extent and Scale of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Quantifying Water Supply from Forested Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Drinking Water Intakes and Population Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Linking Water from Forested Lands to Drinking Water Intakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Water Supply from Forested Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Population and Communities Served by Water from Forested Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Case Study: Chattahoochee National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ABSTRACT

Forests and water are inextricably linked, and people are dependent on forested lands to 

provide clean, reliable water supplies for drinking and to support local economies. These 

water supplies are at risk of degradation from a growing population, continued conversion of 

forests to other land uses, and climate change. Given the variety of threats to surface water, it 

is important for forest managers to know how much of the drinking water supply originates in 

forests they manage and what populations and communities are served by that water. In this 

analysis, we used a hydrologic model, Water Supply Stress Index (WaSSI), and a database of 

surface water intakes to quantify the extent to which people depend on surface water from 

USDA Forest Service National Forest System (NFS) lands and State and private forest lands 

in the South. We computed the water yield for NFS lands in addition to other land cover types, 

and accumulated and tracked water from NFS and State and private forest lands through the 

river network. We then estimated the population served by water from NFS lands across the 

South using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act database 

of drinking water intakes. We estimated that NFS lands contributed 3.4 percent and State and 

private forest lands 32.4 percent of the approximately 900 million m3/year of total surface 

water supply in the region. Of the 6,724 public surface water intakes in the South, 1,541 intakes 

serving 19.0 million people receive some water from all NFS lands in and upstream of the 

13 Southern States. Of the 1,541 intakes, 427 received more than 20 percent of their water from 

NFS lands and served 3.2 million people. Similarly, 6,188 intakes serving 48.7 million people 

receive some water from State and private forest lands. Of the 6,188 intakes, 3,143 received 

more than 20 percent of their water from State and private forest lands and served 29.0 million 

people. These results highlight the importance of southern forests in providing clean and 

dependable water supplies to downstream communities. While environmental and economic 

factors are likely to interact and cause changes in water availability and quality, forest 

conservation and proper management can help mitigate these effects. 

Keywords: drinking water, hydrologic modeling, National Forest System, State and private 

forest lands, WaSSI, water supply.

Oak shelterwood, Ozark National Forest.
GTR-SRS-197

1

There is a well-known link between forests and 

water quantity and quality (Brown and others 2008, 

Lockaby and others 2011, Sedell and others 2000, 

Sun and others 2004). Decades of research have 

shown how forests help filter water, mitigate flooding, 

recharge groundwater, and regulate the timing and 

magnitude of streamflows (Anderson and others 1976, 

Jackson and others 2004, Lockaby and others 2011, 

Sun and others 2004). Conversion of forests to urban 

and agricultural land covers threatens water resources 

but is increasingly common as populations grow and 

expand (Lockaby and others 2011, Sun and others 

2005). Urban and intensive agricultural land uses 

can impair water quality by introducing nutrients, 

sediment, bacteria, and other pollutants to streams 

and rivers (Lockaby and others 2011, Paul and Meyer 

2001). Impervious surfaces associated with urban 

development also impact water quantity by increasing 

overland flow, reducing infiltration, diverting runoff, 

and increasing peak flows (Lockaby and others 

2011, Paul and Meyer 2001, Sun and Lockaby 2012, 

Wheater and Evans 2009). 

People around the world rely on healthy forests for 

clean and abundant drinking water. Globally, about 

one-third (33 out of 105) of the world’s largest cities 

obtain a significant proportion of their drinking 

water directly from protected forest areas (Dudley 

and Stolton 2003). For example, initial estimates 

suggest that while Federal, State, and private 

forests make up 29 percent of the land area of the 

conterminous United States, these lands provide 

approximately 53 percent of the total water yield 

(Brown and others 2008). Nearly 80 percent of 

our Nation’s streams originate on both public and 

private forested land (Sedell and others 2000), 

making preservation of healthy, productive forests 

imperative for our current and future water supply 

to abate human health and economic consequences 

(Postel and Thompson 2005).

About one-third (33 out of 105) of the world’s largest 

cities obtain a significant proportion of their 

drinking water directly from protected forest areas.

Introduction

The Forest–Water–People Connection

Water Yield

Water yield is the amount of excess water 

leaving a watershed as streamflow after 

accounting for losses that include changes 

in water storage in the soil, evaporation, and 

transpiration from vegetation. 

Climate, soils, elevation, topography, and land 

cover type all play a role in the magnitude and 

timing of water yield across diverse forests of 

the South. 

Water yield is the basis for surface water supply, 

which can be calculated by accumulating the 

water volume generated from each land cover 

type in the entire land area upstream of a 

location of interest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

2

Southern forests are especially important for water 

supply to major population centers in the region. 

Forests cover 27 percent of the total land area of 

the 13 Southern States of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia while providing 

34 percent of the total available water yield in 

the South (Lockaby and others 2011). The Forest 

Service Region 8 (R8) manages 13.3 million acres 

of NFS lands that include 33 National Forests, two 

Grasslands, and one National Recreation Area in 

the 13 Southern States from Texas to Virginia. 

Thirteen million acres (98 percent) of the NFS land 

in R8 is forested, representing 6 percent of 

the 215 million acres of all forested land in the 

South (Smith and others 2009).

Forest managers need to know how much of the drinking 

water supply originates in their forests and what populations 

and communities are served by that water.

Forests and Water in the South

How Much Do People Depend on Water from Southern Forests?

Pressure on National Forests in the South to provide 

clean water will increase to meet increasing demand 

by downstream communities while land conversion 

and climate change threaten the resource itself (Sun 

and others 2008). Many major population centers in 

the South are highly dependent on water originating 

on forested lands, but the extent of this dependence 

has not been quantified. Given the variety of threats 

to surface water, forest managers need to know how 

much of the drinking water supply originates in their 

forests and what populations and communities are 

served by that water; this information highlights 

the importance of conservation and management 

of forests for clean and dependable water supplies 

in downstream communities. The objective of this 

analysis was to address this need by 1) estimating 

how much fresh surface water supply in the South 

originates from NFS lands and State and private 

forest lands, and 2) estimating how many people and 

which communities in the South depend on this fresh 

surface water supply.

For more than a century, U.S. legislation has 

emphasized the importance of protecting 

inextricably linked forest and water resources. The 

Organic Act of 1897, the Weeks Act of 1911, the 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944, 

and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 all 

sought to safeguard our Nation’s forests and water 

resources. The Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture upholds this legislation and is dedicated 

to the future improvement of water resources 

through restoration and enhancement of forested 

landscapes. The Forest Service currently manages 

193 million acres of public National Forests, 

Grasslands, and a Tallgrass Prairie, including lands 

in 44 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

In addition, the Forest Service cooperates with 

States, other Federal agencies, Tribes, and private 

landowners to sustain the Nation’s private forests 

and grasslands. The Forest Service National Forest 

System (NFS) includes 155 National Forests, 20 

National Grasslands, 20 National Recreation Areas, 

a National Tallgrass Prairie, 6 National Monuments, 

and 6 Land Utilization Projects. In total, the Forest 

Service manages 147 million acres of the total 751 

million acres (20 percent) of forested land in the 

conterminous United States (Smith and others 2009). 

Forest Service Protection of Water Resources through Forest Management
GTR-SRS-197

3

This study focused on surface water supply and 

drinking water intakes in the 13 Southern States. 

We estimated the amount of surface water supply 

to intakes located in these States that originated 

on all NFS lands (forests and grasslands) and all 

State and private forest lands that are either in or 

upstream of the 13 Southern States (fig. 1). The 

NFS lands within the boundaries of the 13 Southern 

States approximate the Forest Service R8 NFS 

lands with some exceptions. McClellan Creek 

National Grassland (1,400 acres), Black Kettle 

National Grassland (31,000 acres), and Rita Blanca 

National Grassland (93,000 acres) in west Texas 

and Oklahoma are not managed by R8 but, for this 

analysis, were considered to be in the southern 

region because they lie within the boundaries of the 

13 Southern States. Part of the Jefferson National 

Forest lies in West Virginia, but West Virginia was 

not included in the 13 Southern States. The surface 

water originating on the portion of the Jefferson 

National Forest in West Virginia was estimated 

as part of this analysis because this water later 

drains to the 13 Southern States. However, intakes 

in West Virginia served by this water were not 

included because they are not in the 13 Southern 

States. Although Puerto Rico is part of R8, it was 

not included in this analysis because the necessary 

modeling tools have not been developed to simulate 

and track water supply from NFS and State and 

private forest lands in this area.

The spatial resolution of our analysis was the 

12-digit, or sixth-level, Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC12) watershed scale. The HUC12 is defined 

in a national standard, six-level hierarchical system 

of hydrologic units in the United States ranging 

from 18 Water Resource Regions (see fig. 1) in the 

conterminous United States at the first and most 

spatially coarse level to approximately 83,000 

HUC12 watersheds at the sixth and most spatially 

fine level. There are approximately 23,000 HUC12s 

in R8; most are approximately 22,000 acres in size. 

Figure 1—National Forest System (NFS) lands and the land area simulated to estimate total surface water 

supply and the amount of water supply originating on NFS lands and State and private forest lands serving 

drinking water intakes in the South.

Methods

Extent and Scale of Analysis
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

4

The relative contribution of forests to the total 

water supply can be estimated for any point along a 

stream network—such as the location of a drinking 

water intake—by tracking water yield from 

forested lands through the river network. We used 

computer modeling and spatial analyses to quantify 

surface water supplied at watershed outlets across 

the South using the Water Supply Stress Index 

Model (WaSSI), a water balance model developed 

by the Forest Service to assess the impact of 

climate change, land use change, and population 

growth on water supply stress, river flows, and 

ecosystem productivity across the conterminous 

United States (Caldwell and others 2011, Caldwell 

and others 2012, Sun and others 2011b). WaSSI has 

been tested, validated, and used in climate change 

assessments in the Eastern United States (Lockaby 

and others 2011, Marion and others 2013, Sun and 

others 2013, Tavernia and others 2013), examining 

the nexus of water and energy at the national scale 

(Averyt and others 2011, Averyt and others 2013) 

and is the best available tool to quantify surface 

water supplied by National Forests to communities 

across broad regions.

WaSSI

Water Supply Stress Index

What is it?

WaSSI is a web-based planning tool that 

predicts the availability of water (and 

other ecosystem services) at local and 

national scales. It was developed by Forest 

Service scientists with the Eastern Forest 

Environmental Threat Assessment Center.

What can it do?

WaSSI produces maps, graphs, and data 

files that predict how climate, land cover, and 

human population change may impact water 

availability and carbon sequestration at the 

watershed level and across the lower 

48 United States and Mexico. 

Who uses it?

Natural resource planners and managers use 

information generated by WaSSI to make 

informed decisions about water supplies in 

light of climatic, economic, and demographic 

change. Educators, researchers, and 

nongovernmental organizations can also use 

WaSSI to gain insight into the effects of global 

change on water and carbon.

Visit www.forestthreats.org/research/tools/wassi to learn 

more and begin exploring WaSSI.

top to bottom: Instruments on this tower collect data for 

WaSSI models; map generated by WaSSI showing 

predicted average annual surface water supply; 

international organizations use WaSSI to help develop 

conservation strategies.

Quantifying Water Supply from Forested Lands
GTR-SRS-197

5

WaSSI is an integrated monthly water balance and 

flow routing model that simulates the full hydrologic 

cycle for each of 10 land cover classes at the HUC12 

scale (fig. 2) using readily available national scale 

databases describing soil properties, land cover, and 

monthly precipitation and temperature (table 1). Each 

database was rescaled from its native resolution to 

the HUC12 scale using an area-weighted averaging 

scheme in a Geographic Information System (GIS). 

In WaSSI, precipitation is partitioned into rain and 

snow using an air temperature-based conceptual 

snow accumulation and melt model (McCabe 

and Wolock 1999). The WaSSI model computes 

monthly infiltration, surface runoff, soil moisture, 

and baseflow processes for each HUC watershed 

land cover using algorithms of the Sacramento 

Soil Moisture Accounting Model (Burnash 1995, 

Burnash and others 1973). The soil profile is divided 

into a relatively thin upper layer and a much thicker 

lower layer which supplies moisture to meet the 

evapotranspiration (ET) demands (Koren and others 

2003). Each layer consists of tension water storage 

(i.e., between soil water tensions of field capacity 

and the plant wilting point) and free water storage 

(i.e., soil water tension greater than field capacity) 

that interact to generate surface runoff, lateral water 

movement from the upper soil layer to the stream 

(interflow), percolation from the upper soil layer 

to the lower soil layer, and lateral water movement 

from the lower soil layer to the stream (baseflow) 

(fig. 2). The monthly ET demand is computed in 

WaSSI as a function of potential ET (Hamon 1963), 

precipitation, and leaf area index using empirical 

relationships derived from multisite eddy covariance 

measurements (Sun and others 2011a, Sun and others 

2011b). Storage and ET for impervious cover in 

each HUC12 are assumed to be negligible; thus, all 

precipitation falling on the impervious portion of a 

Figure 2—Schematic diagram illustrating the hydrological processes simulated 

by the Water Supply Stress Index Model (WaSSI). WaSSI uses national scale 

databases to predict water supply over the conterminous U.S. at the HUC12 scale. 
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

6

watershed for a given month is assumed to generate 

surface runoff in the same month and is routed 

directly to the watershed outlet. Water yield for each 

HUC12 is computed as the sum of surface runoff 

from pervious and impervious surfaces, interflow, 

and baseflow from all land cover types in each 

HUC12. Water yield is then routed and accumulated 

from upstream to downstream HUC12s along the 

river network to estimate the total water supply at 

the outlet of each HUC12. No anthropogenic water 

use was considered, and the model was run using 

off-the-shelf input datasets without calibration. 

For this analysis, we overlaid the NFS surface 

ownership parcels on the HUC12 boundaries, the 

2006 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), and 

the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

(MODIS) leaf area index model inputs to make 

an 11th land cover category for NFS lands. The 

NFS surface ownership parcels differ from NFS 

administrative forest boundaries in that NFS surface 

ownership parcels contain only those parcels 

owned by the NFS whereas the NFS administrative 

boundaries include all lands within the broad 

jurisdiction of a given national forest regardless 

of whether or not the NFS owns the land. As we 

were interested in quantifying the importance of 

State and private forested lands for water supply in 

addition to NFS lands, we considered the remaining 

State, private, and small amount of other Federallyowned forested lands after the NFS lands overlay to 

reasonably represent State and private forests. We 

revised the WaSSI flow routing algorithm to track 

water flow from NFS (fig. 1) and State and private 

forest land cover classes through the river network. 

The WaSSI model was run at a monthly time step 

from 2001 to 2010 over the HUC12 watersheds in 

and upstream of the 13 Southern States in R8. The 

time period between 2001 and 2010 was selected 

because it roughly corresponded to the collection 

dates of the land cover and leaf area index input 

databases, as well as the estimates of drinkingwater population served (discussed below). The 

mean annual discharge, the fraction of mean annual 

discharge from NFS land, and the fraction of 

discharge from State and private forest land were 

computed for each HUC12 in the southern region. 

The model was executed considering the combined 

contribution to water supply from all NFS lands in 

and upstream of the 13 Southern States, and also 

individually for each of the 33 National Forests, 

2 National Grasslands, and the Land Between the 

Lakes National Recreation Area managed by the 

Forest Service R8. 

Table 1—Data inputs for the Water Supply Stess Index (WaSSI) model

Data/database Source Resolution Time 

period

Soil properties 

STATSGO-based Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting 

Model soil parameters and NOAA-NWS Hydrology 

Laboratory. Office of Hydrologic Development.

1 X 1 km grid –

Land cover distribution National Land Cover Database for the conterminous 

United States (http://mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php) 30 X 30 m grid 2006

National Forest System 

lands 

USFS Automated Lands Program Land Status Record 

System surface ownership parcels (basic ownership) 

(http://fsgeodata.fs.fed.us/vector/lsrs.php)

parcel 2013

Monthly mean leaf area 

index by land cover

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 

(http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/) 1 X 1 km grid 2000–2006

Climate (monthly 

precipitation and 

temperature)

PRISM Climate Group

(http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/) 4 X 4 km grid 2001–2010

River network National Hydrography Dataset

(http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html) 1:100,000 –

Watershed boundaries Watershed Boundary Dataset 

(http://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html)

HUC12 

(~90 km2) –

– = Input data assumed to be constant over time.
GTR-SRS-197

7

We used the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Information 

System (SDWIS) database (EPA 2012) to identify 

locations, communities, and population served by 

surface water across the South (fig. 3). The SDWIS 

contains basic information on water systems such as 

their name, location, number of people served, type 

of system (residential or other), and characteristics 

of their source water. The SDWIS identifies 

approximately 156,000 public water systems serving 

greater than or equal to 25 persons and having 

greater than or equal to 15 service connections for 

surface and groundwater. Self-supplied groundwater 

wells—such as those serving single-family 

homes—are not included in the database; thus, 

our estimates of the population served by forested 

lands are underestimated as these wells are likely 

getting some water originating on forested lands. 

For this analysis, we first screened the intakes 

for those located in the 13 Southern States, then 

eliminated those with obvious locational errors and 

intakes where the population served attribute was 

not populated. Similar to Weidner and Todd (2011), 

we selected intakes that are served by surface 

water sources by identifying those whose source 

was denoted as “surface water” and “groundwater 

under the influence of surface water.” No intakes 

in the SDWIS whose source was identified as 

strictly “groundwater” were included in our analysis 

because we could not be certain of the origin (i.e., 

forested land vs. nonforested land) of groundwater 

supplies for any given well at this large scale. 

Depending on local factors such as well depth, 

elevation gradients, and aquifer characteristics, 

groundwater may originate from the same location 

at which it is withdrawn, or it may have originated 

some distance away. By not including groundwater 

wells, our estimates of the population served by 

forested lands are underestimated as these wells are 

likely getting some water originating on forested 

lands. In the SDWIS, the population served is 

attributed to the water system, and there may be 

multiple intakes with different locations in that 

water system. In such cases we assumed that the 

total population served by the water system was 

divided equally among the intakes in that system. 

As a result, some intakes were estimated to serve 

less than the 25-person minimum public water 

system threshold in the SDWIS database. We 

made no attempt to correct errors in locational 

and population data in the SDWIS database using 

locally collected data because it was not practical to 

do so at this large scale. The final database used in 

this analysis included 6,724 surface water intakes in 

the South (fig. 3) serving a total population of 

50.3 million people, which is 48 percent of the 

nearly 105 million people living in the region (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010).

Figure 3—The 6,724 surface water intakes in the South and population served by those intakes. 

Intakes are sized and colored according to the population that depends on water from these intakes.

Drinking Water Intakes and Population Served
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

8

Like other semi-distributed hydrologic models, 

WaSSI predicts discharge at the outlet of each 

modeling unit (e.g., HUC12 watersheds) in the 

river network and cannot resolve the amount 

of water provided by forested land for specific 

locations within each modeling unit. We assumed 

that the proportion of water from forested lands 

at the outlet of the HUC12 watershed in which 

each intake was located was representative of that 

for the actual intake location. To improve this 

estimate for individual intake locations, smaller 

delineated watersheds would be required, which 

would be impractical for applying at the regional 

scale. No attempt was made to eliminate intakes 

possibly located on drainages within HUC12s 

with percentage of water supply from NFS lands 

that were not reflective of the HUC12 outlet. In 

some cases, intakes were located in coves off the 

main stem of water supply reservoirs; thus, the 

proportion of water from forested lands on the 

reservoir main stem was more representative than 

that of the inundated tributary in which the intake 

was located. We assumed that these intakes were 

receiving source water with the same proportion of 

water from forested land as that of the first HUC12 

watershed downstream and on the main stem of the 

water supply reservoir.

Linking Water from Forested Lands to Drinking Water Intakes

Curtis Creek in North Carolina.
GTR-SRS-197

9

Water supply is the sum of the water yield generated 

in all HUC12s upstream of a given location on the 

river network. The HUC watershed river network 

was apparent in the spatial variability of predicted 

2001–2010 mean annual surface water supply (fig. 4), 

reflecting the influence of both climate regime and 

upstream drainage area. The mean annual surface 

water supply ranged from near zero in HUCs in 

arid west Texas to more than 750 billion m3/year 

at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Water yield 

is greatest in areas with high precipitation and low 

evapotranspiration (e.g., mountainous areas and/or at 

northern latitudes), and it is lowest in areas with low 

precipitation and high evapotranspiration (e.g., arid 

west Texas). For example, HUC 060102030101 in the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains of western North 

Carolina received 1996 mm of precipitation per year 

on average with 1157 mm (58 percent) predicted 

to exit the watershed as water yield. Meanwhile, 

HUC 120800041007 in arid west Texas received 

391 mm of precipitation per year with only 7.8 mm 

(2.0 percent) leaving the watershed as water yield 

and 98 percent lost as evapotranspiration. Even 

with the same amount of annual precipitation, water 

yield varies across the South due to differences 

in evapotranspiration driven by differences 

in evaporative energy. For example, HUC 

031401060203 along the Gulf Coast in southern 

Figure 4—Predicted 2001–2010 mean annual water supply in millions of cubic meters per year by 12-digit 

(sixth level) hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed for those watersheds supplying water to the South. 

HUCs are colored by the magnitude of available water supply at the HUC outlet. 

Water yield is greatest in areas with high precipitation 

and low evapotranspiration, and it is lowest in areas with low 

precipitation and high evapotranspiration.

Results

Water Supply from Forested Lands
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

10

Alabama (66 percent forested) received 1683 mm of 

precipitation per year with 633 mm (38 percent) 

leaving the watershed as water yield, while HUC 

060102020103 in western North Carolina (88 percent 

forested) received similar precipitation (1688 mm) 

with 859 mm (51 percent) leaving the watershed as 

water yield. Although forests generally have higher 

rates of evapotranspiration than other land cover 

types, water yield from forest lands is generally 

higher because they occur in areas with sufficient 

precipitation to support their growth. Across the 

land area in and upstream of the 13 Southern 

States, the HUC12s with more than 50 percent 

forest cover (n=10,724 HUC12s) had 43 percent 

higher mean annual precipitation, 28 percent higher 

evapotranspiration, and 78 percent higher water 

yield than those HUC12s with less than 50 percent 

forest cover (n=39,751 HUC12s).

Water supply originating on both NFS and State 

and private forest lands makes significant and 

disproportionate contributions to total water supply 

across the South (table 2, fig. 5). NFS 

lands in the 13 Southern States of Forest Service 

R8 make up 2.6 percent of the total land area but 

contribute 3.4 percent (30 billion m3/year) of the 

900 billion m3/year total available water supply 

generated in the region. State and private forests 

make up 27.1 percent of the total land area in the 

13 Southern States and account for 32.4 percent 

(292 billion m3/year) of the total water supply. 

Contributions of forested lands to the total water 

supply are similar when considering R8 and areas 

upstream (table 2). State and private forest lands 

provide more than 50 percent of the water supply 

for a significant portion of the South, including the 

highly populated metropolitan areas in the Piedmont 

region extending across the States of Virginia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama 

(fig. 5B). Although the percentage of total annual 

water supply originating on NFS lands may be low 

(3.4 percent) for the region as a whole, the role NFS 

lands play in providing water supply is much more 

significant locally for those areas in and immediately 

downstream of NFS lands, as indicated by the 

localized orange, purple, and red areas in figure 5A. 

Table 2—Summary of water supply from forested lands serving drinking water intakes in the South

Region

The 13 Southern States 

of USFS R8

Land area in and 

upstream of the 

13 Southern States

Total land area (million km2) 2.5 4.9

Percentage of total land area in NFS land (%) 2.6 4.0

Percentage of total land area in State and private forest 

land (%) 27.1 20.0

Mean total annual water supply (billion m3/year) 904 (56.7)a 1374 (63.3)a

Mean percentage of total annual water supply originating 

on National Forest System land (%) 3.4 (0.1)a 4.1 (0.1)a

Mean percentage of total annual water supply originating 

on State and private forest land (%) 32.4 (0.6)a 29.3 (0.8)a

a

 Numbers in parentheses are the standard error for the mean values across the 10-year model simulation.

NFS lands in the South contributed 30 billion m3/year 

to the total available surface water supply, and State and private 

forest lands contributed 292 billion m3/year.
GTR-SRS-197

11

Figure 5—Proportion of the total 2001–2010 mean annual water supply originating on (A) National Forest System 

(NFS) lands and (B) State and private forest lands by hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed. Water supply is the 

total amount of surface water available at the outlet of each HUC watershed, including flow accumulated from 

HUCs upstream. The 12-digit (sixth level) HUC watersheds are colored according to the fraction of total water 

supply at the watershed outlet that originated on NFS or State and private forest lands.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

12

The population in the South is served by water 

from forests to different extents depending on 

the size of the communities and their proximity 

to forested lands (fig. 6). The contribution of 

NFS lands and State and private forest lands in 

providing surface drinking water supply was 

evaluated over two extents. First, we considered 

the contribution of all NFS lands and State and 

private forest lands both in and upstream of the 

13 Southern States. Second, we considered the 

contribution of only the NFS lands and State and 

private forest lands in the 13 Southern States. 

The results of both extents are discussed on the 

following pages.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

>0% >10% >20% >30% >40% >50% >60% >70% >80% >90%

Population served (millions)

Percentage of surface water supply originating on NFS Lands

(A)

Population and Communities Served by Water from Forested Lands

Figure 6—Population served by different proportions of water originating on (A) National Forest System 

(NFS) lands and (B) State and private forest lands. Blue bars are the population served by water 

originating on all State and private forest lands and NFS lands in and upstream of the 13 Southern States 

of the USFS Region 8; red bars are the population served by water originating on State and private forest 

and NFS lands in the 13 Southern States only.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

>0% >10% >20% >30% >40% >50% >60% >70% >80% >90%

Population served (millions)

Percentage of surface water supply originating 

on State and private forest lands

(B)
GTR-SRS-197

13

Water from all forested lands in and upstream 

of the 13 Southern States—The NFS lands in 

and upstream of the 13 Southern States provided 

some drinking water supply (more than 0 percent of 

the total supply) for 19.0 million people in the South, 

representing 38 percent of the 50.3 million total 

population served by surface water in the region 

(fig. 6A). Similarly, 48.7 million people received some 

amount of their drinking water supply from State and 

private forest lands (fig. 6B). Approximately 

3.2 million people in the South receive more than 

20 percent of their drinking water from NFS lands in 

and upstream of the 13 Southern States. Of the 

6,724 surface water intakes in the South, 

1,541 intakes serve the 19.0 million receiving some 

portion of their source water from NFS lands, while 

427 intakes serving 3.2 million receive more than 

20 percent of source water from NFS lands in and 

upstream of the 13 Southern States. For State and 

private forest lands, 6,188 intakes serve 48.7 million

receiving some portion of their source water from 

State and private forest lands in and upstream of 

the 13 Southern States. Those intakes receiving 

significant contributions by NFS land to their total 

water supply are generally located immediately 

downstream of NFS lands (fig. 7). Some surface 

water intakes serving large populations and 

receiving more than 20 percent of their water supply 

from NFS lands include the following: 3 of 3 intakes 

serving Lynchburg, VA with 76,000 people served; 

2 of 2 intakes serving Johnson City, TN with 

96,000 people served; 2 of 3 intakes serving Little 

Rock, AR with 209,000 people served; 1 of 4 intakes 

serving Birmingham, AL with 148,000 people 

served; and 1 intake serving Hickory, NC with 

56,000 people served (fig. 7).

Figure 7—Intakes (black circles) located in hydrologic unit code (HUC12) watersheds (colored areas) where some 

amount of source water originated on National Forest System (NFS) lands, including those NFS lands outside of 

Forest Service Region 8. Some surface water intakes serving large populations and receiving more than 20 percent 

of their water supply from NFS lands are noted on the map. 
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

14

Water from forested lands in the 13 Southern 

States only—The NFS lands in the 13 Southern 

States provided some drinking water supply (more 

than 0 percent of the total supply) for 17.3 million 

people in the South, representing 34 percent of the 

50.3 million total population served by surface 

water in the region (fig. 6A). Similarly, 48.4 million 

people received some amount of their drinking 

water supply from State and private forest lands (fig. 

6B). Approximately 2.0 million people in the South 

receive more than 20 percent of their drinking water 

from NFS lands located within the 13 Southern 

States. Of the 6,724 surface water intakes in the 

South, 1,325 intakes serve the 17.3 million receiving 

some portion of their source water from NFS lands, 

while 294 intakes serving 2.0 million receive more 

than 20 percent of source water from NFS lands. For 

State and private forest lands, 6,060 intakes serve 

48.4 million people receiving some portion of their 

source water from State and private forest lands in 

the 13 Southern States.

In addition to evaluating the contribution of 

water supply from all NFS lands collectively, we 

evaluated the individual contribution for each of 

the 33 National Forests, 2 National Grasslands, 

and the Land Between the Lakes National 

Recreation Area managed by the Forest Service 

R8 in the 13 Southern States. To accomplish 

this objective we created unique model input 

databases, performed the water supply simulation 

with WaSSI, and linked the water supply outputs 

to the EPA SDWIS database of intakes to estimate 

the population and communities served by each 

individual NFS unit. Results of the analyses for 

each National Forest, Grassland, and Recreation 

Area are provided in the appendix. In a case study 

presented here, we highlight one of the National 

Forests—the Chattahoochee National Forest—

which plays a major role in providing water 

supply to the city of Atlanta, GA and surrounding 

communities (see the text box on the following 

three pages).

Approximately 3.2 million people in the South receive more than 20 percent of 

their drinking water from NFS lands in and upstream of the 13 Southern States. 

Approximately 2.0 million people in the South receive more than 20 percent 

of their drinking water from NFS lands in the 13 Southern States only.

left to right: Big Creek in North Carolina (Chris Evans, Illinois Wildlife Action Plan); kids playing in the forest; and forest scene.
GTR-SRS-197

top to bottom: Chattahoochee National Forest signage for Brasstown 

Bald entry; Buford Dam and Lake Lanier (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); 

view of colorful foliage along the Chattahoochee River in autumn (National 

Park Service); Blue Hole Falls in the Chattahoochee National Forest.

The Chattahoochee National Forest encompasses 

approximately 1.47 million acres in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains of northern Georgia. 

The Chattahoochee National Forest serves as 

the headwaters of several major rivers in the 

east including the Tennessee, Coosa, Savannah, 

and Chattahoochee Rivers. Water from the 

Chattahoochee National Forest makes its way north 

to communities in North Carolina and Tennessee, 

southwest to Georgia and Alabama, and southeast 

to South Carolina (fig. 8). A small percentage of 

water from Chattahoochee National Forest mixes 

with water from several other NFS lands and serves 

intakes located on the Mississippi River in southern 

Louisiana. While it might be a small percentage 

of the total volume of water that flows down the 

Mississippi, NFS lands still provide millions of 

gallons of surface water supply to these communities 

each year. We estimate that 283 intakes in 

168 public water supply systems receive some 

water from the Chattahoochee National Forest and 

serve approximately 6.1 million people. Of the 

283 intakes, 33 intakes in 20 water systems receive 

10–20 percent of their source water from the forest 

and serve a total population of 2.56 million. Over 

20,000 people receive more than 50 percent of their 

water from the Chattahoochee National Forest, 

mainly from public water system intakes located in 

close proximity to the forest. 

The Buford Dam impounds the Chattahoochee 

River to form Lake Lanier downstream of the 

Chattahoochee National Forest. The dam is 

managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

for water supply, hydropower, flood control, and 

recreation (fig. 9). The reservoir provides water 

for the greater Atlanta area: 377 million gallons 

per day for approximately 3.5 million people. 

Communities served by water in Lake Lanier or 

regulated by the Buford Dam include Gwinnett 

County (serving 750,000 people, with 17 percent 

of water from the Chattahoochee National Forest), 

DeKalb County (serving 670,000 people, 14 percent 

from Chattahoochee National Forest), and Atlanta 

(serving 650,000 people, with 11 percent from 

Chattahoochee National Forest).

Case Study: 

Chattahoochee National Forest

15
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

16

Figure 8—Intakes served by Chattahoochee National Forest. The proportion of water from Chattahoochee 

National Forest for streams in and immediately downstream of the National Forest (headwater streams 

in green) could not be determined because these streams drain catchments much smaller than the 

HUC12 scale of our modeling approach. Streams further downstream of the National Forest are colored 

according to the percentage of the total streamflow that originated in Chattahoochee National Forest. 

Intakes are sized according to the population they serve, and the center of the intake points are colored by 

the percentage of the total available water supply at that intake that originated in Chattahoochee National 

Forest. Only intakes with more than 10 percent of their total available surface water supply originating in 

the National Forest are shown. Some intakes may not be visible because they overlap with other nearby 

intakes. Numbers adjacent to intakes are identifiers linked to intake ID in summary tables in the appendix.

Case Study: Chattahoochee National Forest
GTR-SRS-197

17

Figure 9—Intakes serving the greater Atlanta, GA, area with water from the Chattahoochee National 

Forest and regulated by the Buford Dam at Lake Lanier.

Case Study: Chattahoochee National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

18

Our results provide a snapshot of the current role 

that NFS lands and State and private forest lands 

play in providing surface water supply in the 13 

Southern States. These results are based on the latest 

estimates of land cover distribution and locations of 

and populations served by existing drinking water 

intakes. Clearly, both NFS lands and State and 

private forest lands are an important part of the water 

supply system for many large population centers in 

the South. While the contribution of water from NFS 

lands to the region as a whole was small, NFS lands 

are important sources of water for many individual 

communities including several large population 

centers. State and private forest lands, due to their 

extent and prevalence in the region, are particularly 

critical for surface water supply generation. Across 

the Piedmont region, State and private forest lands 

provide a significant proportion of the total surface 

water supply to drinking water intakes for many of 

the largest population centers in the South, including 

Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Atlanta, Greenville, 

and Birmingham. Unfortunately, State and private 

forest lands may be most vulnerable as development 

pressures from expanding populations may lead to 

conversion of more State and private forest lands 

from forest cover to urban land uses. The Weeks 

Act of 1911 allowed for the establishment of some 

of the first National Forests in the Eastern United 

States through the purchase of degraded lands in 

the interest of restoring watershed functions. Much 

of the eastern forested land was already settled 

by this time; thus, eastern National Forests are 

smaller and less contiguous than in the West and 

have large inholdings of State and private forest 

lands. The continued expansion of partnerships and 

shared responsibility between public and private 

landowners—especially in the eastern National 

Forests where there are many private inholdings—

will be essential for the sustainability of current and 

future water quality and quantity. 

Future climate and land cover change will impact 

the role that forests play in providing surface water 

supply to residents of the South. Recent projections 

suggest that the population in the 13 Southern States 

may increase by 36.2–67.9 million by 2060 (34–65 

percent from 2010 levels), with a corresponding 

increase in impervious cover of 6,845–12,055 km2

(17.0–29.9 percent from 2010 levels) (EPA 2009). 

Increases in population will mean that forests will 

become even more important to a greater number 

of people who are served by existing drinking 

water intakes. “Rural flight”—the movement of 

people from rural areas (mostly with self-supplied 

groundwater wells) to cities (with municipal surface 

water intakes)—will also mean a larger number 

of people will be dependent on surface water 

originating on forested lands. However, the land 

conversion from forest to urban uses associated 

with population growth will reduce the proportion 

of water supply originating on forested lands simply 

because there will be less forested land; thus, a 

larger proportion of the total water supply will 

originate on other land cover types (i.e., developed 

land). In addition, water yield from developed lands 

is generally greater than that of the forest land cover 

they replace due to the higher evapotranspiration 

rates of forests (Piao and others 2007, Sun and 

others 2011a) and increased direct runoff from 

impervious surfaces on developed land (Caldwell 

and others 2012, Lull and Sopper 1969, O’Driscoll 

and others 2010). Climate change has the potential 

to stress forest and other ecosystems (Allen and 

others 2010, Sun and others 2008, Wear and Greis 

2012), threaten the sustainability of water supplies 

(Alcamo and others 2003, Vörösmarty and others 

2000, Vörösmarty and others 2010), and increase 

water demand for irrigation (McDonald and Girvetz 

2013). Global change impacts on water supply will 

have both additive and canceling interactions, with 

land use change impacts depending on the relative 

magnitude of change among global change drivers 

(Caldwell and others 2012). 

Both NFS lands and State and forest 

private lands are an important

part of the water supply system 

for many large population 

centers in the South. 

Discussion
GTR-SRS-197

19

Conversion of forest land to urban uses may 

increase water yield and surface water supply, but 

this increase in quantity will have costly tradeoffs. 

Urbanization degrades water quality by increasing 

nutrient, sediment, and bacteria concentrations; it 

also changes the flow regime to include higher peak 

flows and higher streamflow velocities that lead to 

streambank failure, bed scouring, channel incision, 

and a loss of connectivity with the floodplain 

(Lockaby and others 2011, Paul and Meyer 2001, 

Wheater and Evans 2009). These factors will 

increase drinking water treatment costs (Elias and 

others 2013), increase the frequency and severity 

of flood events (Lull and Sopper 1969, O’Driscoll 

and others 2010), and degrade aquatic ecosystems 

(Lockaby and others 2011, Poff and others 2006). For 

example, Elias and others (2013) analyzed a 267-

km2 forested water supply watershed in Alabama; 

they projected that increases in urban land cover 

from 3–22 percent by 2020 will increase water 

treatment costs by $91–$95 per km2 per day, and 

monthly flows will increase 15 percent on average, 

with surface runoff increasing from 7 percent of 

total flow under baseline conditions to 36 percent of 

total flow after urbanization. Clearly any gains in 

water quantity through urbanization will be more 

than offset by water quality and flood hazard issues. 

Maintaining forest land cover can be a cost-effective 

means of protecting water quality and regulating the 

flow regime for human consumption, flood control, 

and maintaining aquatic ecosystem health.

Forests and water are inextricably linked, and 

people are dependent on forested lands to provide 

clean, reliable water supplies for drinking water 

and to support local economies. In this analysis, we 

used a hydrologic model and a database of surface 

water intakes to quantify the extent to which people 

depend on water from forested lands in the South. 

We estimated that NFS lands and State and private 

forest lands in the 13 Southern States contribute 

3.4 percent and 32.4 percent, respectively, of the 

approximately 900 million m3/year of total surface 

drinking water supply in the region. Of the 6,724 

public surface water intakes in the South, 1,541 

intakes serving 19.0 million people receive some 

water from all NFS lands in and upstream of the 13 

Southern States. Of the 1,541 intakes, 427 received 

more than 20 percent of their water from NFS lands 

and served 3.2 million people. Similarly, 6,188 

intakes serving 48.7 million people receive some 

water from State and private forest lands; of the 

6,188 intakes, 3,143 received more than 20 percent 

of their water from State and private forest lands and 

served 29.0 million people. While the contribution of 

water from NFS lands to the region as a whole was 

small, NFS lands were important sources of water 

for many individual communities including several 

large population centers. 

This analysis focused strictly on surface drinking 

water supplies. However, NFS lands and State and 

private forest lands make similar contributions to 

water supply for other water-use sectors including 

agriculture, industrial, thermoelectric power 

generation, and others. Results of our work highlight 

the need for conservation and management of 

southern forests to ensure clean and dependable 

water supplies in downstream communities. Across 

the United States and especially in the South, 

environmental and economic factors are likely to 

interact and cause changes in water availability 

and quality, but forest conservation and proper 

management can help mitigate these effects. 

Maintaining forest land cover is a cost-effective means of protecting water 

quality and regulating the flow regime for human consumption, 

flood control, and maintaining aquatic ecosystem health.

Summary and Conclusions
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

20

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Region; 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, and by agreement 

number 12-CS-11330140-128 to P. Bolstad at the 

University of Minnesota. We are grateful to Claudia 

Cotton, Daniel Boone National Forest, for her 

constructive comments on the manuscript.

References

Alcamo, J.; Doll, P.; Henrichs, T. [and others]. 2003. Global 

estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current 

and future “business-as-usual” conditions. Hydrological Sciences 

Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques. 48: 339-348.

Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H.D. [and others]. 2010. A 

global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals 

emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 259:660-684.

Anderson, H.W.; Hoover, M.D.; Reinhart, K.G. 1976. Forests and water 

effects of forest management on floods, sedimentation, and water 

supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-18. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 115 p.

Averyt, K.; Fisher, J.; Huber-Lee, A. [and others]. 2011. Freshwater use 

by U.S. power plants: electricity’s thirst for a precious resource, a 

report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative. 62 p. 

Unpublished report. On file with: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 

Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780.

Averyt, K.; Meldrum, J.; Caldwell, P. [and others]. 2013. Sectoral 

contributions to surface water stress in the coterminous 

United States. Environmental Research Letters. 8 035046 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035046. 

Brown, T.C.; Hobbins, M.T.; Ramirez, J.A. 2008. Spatial distribution 

of water supply in the coterminous United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 44: 1474-1487.

Burnash, R.J. 1995. The NWS river forecast system—catchment 

modeling. In Singh, V.P., ed. Computer models of watershed 

hydrology. Littleton, CO: Water Resources Publications: 311-366.

Burnash, R.J.; Ferral, R.L.; McGuire, R.A. 1973. A generalized 

streamflow simulation system: conceptual modeling for digital 

computers. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Weather Service, and State of California, Department of 

Water Resources. 204 p.

Caldwell, P.; Sun, G.; McNulty, S. [and others]. 2011. Modeling 

impacts of environmental change on ecosystem services across 

the conterminous United States. In Medley, C.N.; Patterson, G.; 

Parker, M.J., eds. Observing, Studying, and Managing for Change—

Proceedings of the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in 

the Watersheds: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2011: 5169. 202 p.

Caldwell, P.; Sun, G.; McNulty, S. [and others]. 2012. Impacts of 

impervious cover, water withdrawals, and climate change on 

river flows in the conterminous U.S. Hydrology and Earth System 

Sciences. 16: 2839-2857.

Dudley, N.; Stolton, S. 2003. Running pure: the importance of forest 

protected areas to drinking water. Washington, DC: World Bank/

WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. 112 p.

Elias, E.; Laband, D.; Dougherty, M. 2013. Estimating the public water 

supply protection value of forests. Journal of Contemporary Water 

Research & Education. 152: 11.

Hamon, W.R. 1963. Computation of direct runoff amounts from storm 

rainfall. International Association of Scientific Hydrology. 63: 

52-62.

Jackson, C.R.; Sun, G.; Amatya, D. [and others]. 2004. Fifty years of 

forest hydrology in the Southeast. In Ice, G.G.; Stednick, J.D., eds. 

A Century of Forested and Wildland Watershed Lessons. Bethesda, 

MD: The Society of American Foresters: 33-112.

Koren, V.; Smith, M.; Duan, Q. 2003. Use of a priori parameter 

estimates in the derivation of spatially consistent parameter sets of 

rainfall-runoff models. In Duan, Q.; Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S. 

[and others], eds. Calibration of Watershed Models. Washington, 

DC: American Geophysical Union: 239–254.

Lockaby, G.; Nagy, C.; Vose, J. [and others]. 2011. Forests and water. 

In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 309-339. 

Lull, H.W.; Sopper, W.E. 1969. Hydrologic effects from urbanization 

of forested watersheds in the northeast. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 31.

Marion, D.A.; Sun, G.; Caldwell, P.V. [and others]. 2013. Managing 

forest water quantity and quality under climate change. In: Vose, 

J.M.; Klepzig, K.D., eds. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation 

Management Options: A Guide for Natural Resource Managers in 

Southern Forest Ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 249-305.

McCabe, G.; Wolock, D.M. 1999. General-circulation-model 

simulations of future snowpack in the Western United States. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35(6): 

1473-1484. 

McDonald, R.I.; Girvetz, E.H. 2013. Two challenges for U.S. irrigation 

due to climate change: increasing irrigated area in wet states and 

increasing irrigation rates in dry states. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65589. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065589. 

O’Driscoll, M.; Clinton, S.; Jefferson, A. [and others]. 2010. 

Urbanization effects on watershed hydrology and in-stream 

processes in the Southern United States. Water. 2: 605-648.

Paul, M.J.; Meyer, J.L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 32: 333-365.

Piao, S.L.; Friedlingstein, P.; Ciais, P. [and others]. 2007. Changes in 

climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on 

global river runoff trends. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America. 104: 15242-15247.

Poff, N.L.; Bledsoe, B.P.; Cuhaciyan, C.O. 2006. Hydrologic variation 

with land use across the contiguous United States: geomorphic and 

ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology. 

79: 264-285.

Postel, S.L.; Thompson, B.H.J. 2005. Watershed protection: capturing 

the benefits of nature’s water supply services. Natural Resources 

Forum. 29: 98-108.

Sedell, J.; Sharpe, M.; Apple, D. [and others]. 2000. Water and the 

Forest Service. FS-660. Washington, DC: United States Department 

of Agriculture. 27 p.
GTR-SRS-197

21

Sun, G.; Lockaby, B.G. 2012. Chapter 3: Water quantity and quality at 

the urban-rural interface. In: Laband, D.N.; Lockaby, B.G.; Zipperer, 

W., eds. Urban-Rural Interfaces: Linking People and Nature. 

Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science 

Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: 26-45.

Sun, G.; Alstad, K.; Chen, J.Q. [and others]. 2011a. A general predictive 

model for estimating monthly ecosystem evapotranspiration. 

Ecohydrology. 4: 245-255.

Sun, G.; Caldwell, P.; Noormets, A. [and others]. 2011b. Upscaling key 

ecosystem functions across the conterminous United States by a 

water-centric ecosystem model. Journal of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences. 116: G00J05.

Sun, G.; Caldwell, P.V.; Georgakakos, A.P. [and others]. 2013. 

Impacts of climate change and variability on water resources in the 

Southeastern U.S. Chapter 10 in: Ingram, K.T.; Dow, K.; Carter, 

L., eds. Southeastern Regional Technical Report to the National 

Climate Change Assessment, Water Resources. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Island Press: 204-234.

Sun, G.; McNulty, S.G.; Lu, J. [and others]. 2005. Regional annual 

water yield from forest lands and its response to potential 

deforestation across the southeastern United States. Journal of 

Hydrology. 308: 258-268.

Sun, G.; Riedel, M.; Jackson, R. [and others]. 2004. Book chapter 3: 

Influences of management of Southern forests on water quantity 

and quality. In: Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K., eds. Southern Forest 

Sciences: Past, Current, and Future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-75. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 394 p.

Sun, G.; McNulty, S.G.; Myers, J.A.M.; Cohen, E.C. 2008. Impacts 

of multiple stresses on water demand and supply across the 

Southeastern United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 44: 1441-1457.

Tavernia, B.G.; Nelson, M.D.; Caldwell, P.V.; Sun, G. 2013. Water 

stress projections in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States 

in 2060: anthropogenic and ecological consequences. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 49: 15.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. United States Census 2010 [online 

database]. Available at: http://www.census.gov/2010census [Date 

accessed: March 7, 2013].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Land-use 

scenarios: national-scale housing-density scenarios consistent 

with climate change storylines. Global Change Research Program, 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC: 

EPA/600/R-08/076F. National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA. 137 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency: Safe Drinking 

Water Information System [online database]. Washington, DC: 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/

enviro/facts/sdwis/index.html [Date accessed: November 2012].

Vörösmarty, C.J.; Green, P.; Salisbury, J.; Lammers, R.B. 2000. Global 

water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population 

growth. Science. 289: 284-288.

Vörösmarty, C.J.; McIntyre, P.B.; Gessner, M.O. [and others]. 2010. 

Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. 

Nature. 467: 555-561.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-168. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 54 p.

Weidner, E.; Todd, A. 2011. From the forest to the faucet: drinking 

water and forests in the U.S. Methods paper. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service. 34 p. Available at: www.fs.fed.us/

ecosystemservices/pdf/forests2faucets/F2F_Methods_Final.pdf. 

[Date accessed: April 15, 2013].

Wheater, H.; Evans, E. 2009. Land use, water management and future 

flood risk. Land Use Policy. 26: S251-S264.

Appendix
Appendix

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Angelina National Forest in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Apalachicola National Forest in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Bienville National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Caddo National Grassland in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Conecuh National Forest in Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Croatan National Forest in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Davy Crockett National Forest in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Delta National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

De Soto National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

George Washington National Forest in Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Holly Springs National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Homochitto National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee . . . . . . 84

Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Ocala National Forest in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Oconee National Forest in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Osceola National Forest in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Ozark National Forest in Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Sabine National Forest in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Sam Houston National Forest in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Sumter National Forest in South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Talladega National Forest in Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Tombigbee National Forest in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Tuskegee National Forest in Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

William B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
A P P E N D I X

25

This appendix provides detailed information 

regarding intakes and water originating on each of 

the 33 National Forests, 2 National Grasslands, and 

the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation 

Area managed by the Forest Service Region 8 (R8) 

in the 13 Southern States. The objectives of this 

analysis were to (1) estimate how much fresh surface 

water supply in the South originates from National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and State and private 

forest lands, and (2) estimate how many people and 

which communities in the South depend on this 

fresh surface water supply. To accomplish these 

objectives, we created unique model input databases 

for each of the 36 NFS units, performed the water 

supply simulation with the Water Supply and Stress 

Index (WaSSI) model, and linked the water supply 

outputs to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 

database of intakes. Results for each NFS unit are 

provided in summary tables and corresponding maps 

as described below. When reviewing these materials, 

consider carefully the assumptions and caveats 

detailed in the Methods section of this paper. The 

intent of this analysis was to quantify the role that 

NFS lands play in providing surface water supply to 

the 6,724 drinking water intakes in the 13 Southern 

States. This was a large scale for analysis, and as 

such, it was not practical to review and correct 

locations, communities, and population served data 

for all of the drinking water intakes. The population 

and communities served by water from NFS lands 

in this analysis should be considered estimates; 

users are encouraged to verify results with locally 

collected data where available. 

This appendix contains tables of all of the intakes 

in and downstream of each of the 36 NFS units. 

The tables include the public water system name, 

the State in which the intake is located, estimated 

population served by the intake, predicted total 

volume of surface water available to the intake, 

the fraction of the total volume originating on the 

individual NFS unit, and the fraction of the total 

volume originating on all NFS lands. In the tables, 

each intake was assigned an identification number 

(ID) that can be used to identify the location of the 

intake on the map for the corresponding NFS unit 

as described below. Some public water systems 

had more than one intake. All intakes associated 

with those public water systems that are located 

downstream of the NFS land are shown in the table 

and are assigned an intake number for that public 

water system. 

In addition to the summary tables, this appendix 

contains maps for each NFS unit showing the NFS 

unit boundaries; streams in and downstream of the 

NFS unit; and the approximate location, population 

served, and proportion of the total water supply that 

originated on each NFS unit for each intake. Intakes 

are sized by population served, and the center of the 

intake points are colored by the percentage of the 

total available water supply that originated in the 

NFS unit at that intake. Streams in and downstream 

of the NFS unit were also colored according to 

the percentage of water originating on the NFS 

unit based on the WaSSI model predictions for 

the HUC12 watershed where the stream segment 

was located. Many of the stream segments drained 

catchments much smaller than the HUC12 and 

could not be assigned an appropriate percentage 

of water supply from the NFS unit; these streams 

are denoted “headwater streams” on the maps 

and are colored green. In some cases, a minimum 

threshold percentage of water originating on the 

NFS unit was applied in order to show the NFS 

unit and downstream intakes at a reasonable scale; 

if a threshold was used, the percentage (5%, 10%, 

etc.) is noted in the map title. Numbers adjacent 

to intakes are identifiers linked to intake ID in the 

summary table for the NFS unit. Some intakes may 

not be visible because they overlap with other nearby 

intakes; in those cases, the intake ID on the map 

shows the range of intake IDs for that location (e.g., 

5-26). Note that some NFS units did not have intakes 

downstream; these NFS units were mapped, but 

there is not an accompanying intake summary table.

Introduction
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

26

Angelina National Forest in Texas

Angelina National Forest and the public water system intakes receiving 

water from Angelina National Forest
A P P E N D I X

27

Angelina National Forest in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Angelina National Forest Table A.1—Angelina National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Angelina NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 1 of 3 TX 20833 11267 2.6% 4.6%

2 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 2 of 3 TX 20833 10079 2.9% 5.1%

3 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 3 of 3 TX 20833 10079 2.9% 5.1%

4 CITY OF ROSE CITY TX 729 11355 2.6% 4.5%

5 CITY OF ZAVALLA 1 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

6 CITY OF ZAVALLA 2 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

7 CITY OF ZAVALLA 3 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

8 CITY OF ZAVALLA 4 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

9 CITY OF ZAVALLA 5 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

10 CITY OF ZAVALLA 6 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

11 CITY OF ZAVALLA 7 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

12 CITY OF ZAVALLA 8 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

13 CITY OF ZAVALLA 9 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

14 CITY OF ZAVALLA 10 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

15 CITY OF ZAVALLA 11 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

16 CITY OF ZAVALLA 12 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

17 CITY OF ZAVALLA 13 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

18 CITY OF ZAVALLA 14 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

19 CITY OF ZAVALLA 15 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

20 CITY OF ZAVALLA 16 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

21 CITY OF ZAVALLA 17 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

22 CITY OF ZAVALLA 18 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

23 CITY OF ZAVALLA 19 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

24 CITY OF ZAVALLA 20 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

25 CITY OF ZAVALLA 21 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

26 CITY OF ZAVALLA 22 of 22 TX 32 98 2.4% 2.5%

27 D & M WSC TX 950 1696 0.2% 0.2%

28 TBCD WINNIE STOWELL TX 3297 10079 2.9% 5.1%

a This percentage includes water from Angelina National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

28

Apalachicola National Forest in Florida

Streams and rivers flowing from Apalachicola National Forest 

No public water system intakes receive water from Apalachicola National Forest
No public water system intakes receive water from Apalachicola National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

30

Bienville National Forest in Mississippi

Bienville National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Bienville National Forest
A P P E N D I X

31

Table A.2—Bienville National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Bienville NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 CITY OF JACKSON 1 of 2 MS 87440 4499 2.4% 2.4%

2 CITY OF JACKSON 2 of 2 MS 87440 4291 2.6% 2.6%

a This percentage includes water from Bienville National Forest.

Bienville National Forest in Mississippi

Public water system intakes receiving water from Bienville National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

32

Caddo National Grassland in Texas

Caddo National Grassland and public water system intakes receiving 

greater than or equal to 0.1% annual water supply from Caddo National Grassland
A P P E N D I X

33

Table A.3—Caddo National Grassland

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Caddo National 

Grassland only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BOSSIER CITY WATER 

SYSTEM, CITY OF 1 of 3 LA 19870 29807 0.1% 2.7%

2 BOSSIER CITY WATER 

SYSTEM, CITY OF 2 of 3 LA 19870 29807 0.1% 2.7%

3 BOSSIER CITY WATER 

SYSTEM, CITY OF 3 of 3 LA 19870 29807 0.1% 2.7%

4 MORGAN CITY WATER 

SYSTEM LA 6352 86790 < 0.05% 3.9%

5 ST MARY PARISH WW 

DIST NO 5 LA 7500 83570 < 0.05% 4.1%

6

WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION #4 OF ST 

MARY

LA 4674 83622 < 0.05% 4.1%

7 CITY OF COMMERCE 1 of 2 TX 1371 115 0.8% 0.8%

8 CITY OF COMMERCE 2 of 2 TX 1371 63 1.5% 1.5%

9 CITY OF COOPER TX 2146 503 0.2% 0.2%

10 CITY OF SULPHUR 

SPRINGS TX 7725 463 0.2% 0.2%

11 CITY OF TEXARKANA TX 19839 3590 0.1% 0.1%

12 INTERNATIONAL PAPER 

TEXARKANA MILL TX 780 3590 0.1% 0.1%

13 NORTH HUNT SUD TX 2064 43 2.7% 2.7%

14 RED RIVER COUNTY WSC TX 1645 1395 0.3% 0.3%

a This percentage includes water from Caddo National Grassland.

Caddo National Grassland in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Caddo National Grassland
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

34

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

Chattahoochee National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 10% annual water supply from Chattahoochee National Forest
A P P E N D I X

35

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

Public water system intakes receiving water from Chattahoochee National Forest (1 of 7 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBERTVILLE UTILITIES BOARD AL 30186 33743 2.1% 13.8%

2 ARAB WATER WORKS BOARD AL 17576 34002 2.1% 13.7%

3 BRIDGEPORT UTILITIES BOARD AL 6000 31480 2.3% 14.7%

4 CENTRE WATER & SEWER BOARD AL 6012 7004 7.7% 8.1%

5 CHATTAHOOCHEE VALLEY WATER 

SUPPLY DIST AL 32 5958 5.4% 5.4%

6 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44324 1.6% 10.6%

7 CLANTON WATER DEPARTMENT AL 13500 12894 4.2% 7.5%

8 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL WATER 

SYSTEM AL 10731 44223 1.6% 10.6%

9 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 

BOARD OF) AL 77100 37772 1.9% 12.4%

10 DEKALB-JACKSON WATER SUPPLY 

DISTRICT AL 40 31699 2.3% 14.6%

11 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 4 AL 1813 19779 2.7% 5.3%

12 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 4 AL 1813 19748 2.7% 5.3%

13 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 3 of 4 AL 1813 19748 2.7% 5.3%

14 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 4 of 4 AL 1813 19748 2.7% 5.3%

15 FIVE STAR WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 100 19683 2.7% 5.3%

16 FLORENCE WATER-WASTEWATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43328 1.7% 10.8%

17 FLORENCE WATER-WASTEWATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43328 1.7% 10.8%

18 FORT PAYNE WATER WORKS 

BOARD AL 7248 32790 2.2% 14.2%

19 FT MITCHELL WATER SYSTEM 1 of 2 AL 2036 8406 3.8% 3.8%

20 FT MITCHELL WATER SYSTEM 2 of 2 AL 2036 8082 3.9% 4.0%

21 GADSDEN WATER WORKS AND 

SEWER BOARD AL 46551 8146 6.6% 7.7%

22 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43328 1.7% 10.8%

23 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43328 1.7% 10.8%

24 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 6375 34002 2.1% 13.7%

25 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 6375 34002 2.1% 13.7%

26 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 31310 36889 1.9% 12.6%

27 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 31310 35723 2.0% 13.0%

28 LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 14625 37965 1.9% 12.3%

29 MARBURY WATER SYSTEM, INC. AL 3660 19779 2.7% 5.3%

30 MILLBROOK UTILITIES AL 4503 19779 2.7% 5.3%

31 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 1 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

32 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 2 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

33 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 3 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

34 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 4 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

35 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 5 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

36 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 6 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

36

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

37 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 7 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

38 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 8 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

39 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 9 of 10 AL 5601 19834 2.7% 5.3%

40 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 10 of 10 AL 5601 19748 2.7% 5.3%

41 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6185 34002 2.1% 13.7%

42 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 6185 34002 2.1% 13.7%

43 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 1 of 3 AL 9375 33743 2.1% 13.8%

44 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 2 of 3 AL 9375 32790 2.2% 14.2%

45 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 3 of 3 AL 9375 32790 2.2% 14.2%

46 OPELIKA UTILITIES AL 18786 6342 5.0% 5.0%

47 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 1 of 4 AL 3788 10130 5.3% 8.1%

48 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 2 of 4 AL 3788 10130 5.3% 8.1%

49 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 3 of 4 AL 3788 10130 5.3% 8.1%

50 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 4 of 4 AL 3788 9991 5.4% 8.2%

51 PHENIX CITY UTILITIES AL 35358 6811 4.7% 4.7%

52 PINE HILL WATER DEPARTMENT AL 2475 28255 1.9% 4.4%

53 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 1 of 11 AL 2330 20527 2.6% 5.1%

54 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 2 of 11 AL 2330 20527 2.6% 5.1%

55 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 3 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

56 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 4 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

57 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 5 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

58 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 6 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

59 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 7 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

60 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 8 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

61 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 9 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

62 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 10 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

63 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 11 of 11 AL 2330 19834 2.7% 5.3%

64 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 1 of 2 AL 10950 32790 2.2% 14.2%

65 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 2 of 2 AL 10950 32790 2.2% 14.2%

66 SECTION-DUTTON WATER SYSTEM AL 32682 32790 2.2% 14.2%

67 SHEFFIELD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44223 1.6% 10.6%

68 SHELBY COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 32337 11492 4.7% 8.2%

69 SMITHS WATER AND SEWER 

AUTHORITY AL 27780 6756 4.7% 4.7%

70 SOUTHSIDE WATER WORKS AL 5357 8684 6.2% 7.2%

71 SPANISH FORT WATER SYSTEM AL 2688 61882 0.9% 3.1%

72 TALLADEGA-SHELBY WATER 

TREATMENT PLANT AL 32 10744 5.0% 8.2%

73 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 1 of 5 AL 2187 19779 2.7% 5.3%

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (2 of 7 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

37

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

74 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 2 of 5 AL 2187 19779 2.7% 5.3%

75 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 3 of 5 AL 2187 19779 2.7% 5.3%

76 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 4 of 5 AL 2187 19748 2.7% 5.3%

77 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 5 of 5 AL 2187 19748 2.7% 5.3%

78 US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 1 of 2 AL 14250 35723 2.0% 13.0%

79 US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 2 of 2 AL 14250 35723 2.0% 13.0%

80 WEST MORGAN-EAST LAWRENCE 

WATER AUTHORIT AL 26130 38098 1.9% 12.3%

81 WILCOX COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 1319 27484 2.0% 4.5%

82 WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER SYSTEM AL 2400 43328 1.7% 10.8%

83 ATLANTA GA 650000 2989 10.7% 10.7%

84 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 1 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

85 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 2 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

86 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 3 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

87 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 4 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

88 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 5 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

89 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 6 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

90 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 7 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

91 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 8 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

92 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 9 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

93 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 10 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

94 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 11 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

95 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 12 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

96 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 13 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

97 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 14 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

98 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 15 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

99 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 16 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

100 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 17 of 18 GA 8870 8960 6.4% 12.5%

101 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 18 of 18 GA 8870 8139 7.1% 13.8%

102 BALDWIN GA 4160 646 29.8% 29.9%

103 BLAIRSVILLE GA 3400 176 51.3% 51.3%

104 BLUE RIDGE GA 5506 740 47.5% 47.5%

105 BUFORD GA 8045 1845 17.3% 17.3%

106 CALHOUN 1 of 8 GA 6136 1150 10.4% 10.4%

107 CALHOUN 2 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

108 CALHOUN 3 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

109 CALHOUN 4 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

110 CALHOUN 5 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

111 CALHOUN 6 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

112 CALHOUN 7 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

113 CALHOUN 8 of 8 GA 6136 2234 15.6% 16.9%

114 CANON 1 of 2 GA 484 172 3.0% 3.0%

115 CANON 2 of 2 GA 484 172 3.0% 3.0%

116 CANTON GA 14300 987 9.5% 9.6%

(Continued)

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (3 of 7 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

38

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

117 CARTERS LAKE MARINA & RESORT GA 62 563 21.2% 21.2%

118 CARTERSVILLE GA 24830 1680 5.6% 5.6%

119 CATOOSA UTIL. DIST. AUTHORITY GA 49400 65 1.3% 1.3%

120 CHATSWORTH 1 of 5 GA 5383 596 20.1% 20.1%

121 CHATSWORTH 2 of 5 GA 5383 85 38.7% 38.7%

122 CHATSWORTH 3 of 5 GA 5383 39 49.0% 49.0%

123 CHATSWORTH 4 of 5 GA 5383 32 58.1% 58.1%

124 CHATSWORTH 5 of 5 GA 5383 32 58.1% 58.1%

125 CHEROKEE COUNTY GA 145389 802 11.7% 11.8%

126 CLARKESVILLE GA 5785 217 25.1% 25.1%

127 CLEVELAND WATERWORKS 1 of 3 GA 1213 55 9.6% 9.6%

128 CLEVELAND WATERWORKS 2 of 3 GA 1213 55 9.6% 9.6%

129 CLEVELAND WATERWORKS 3 of 3 GA 1213 55 9.6% 9.6%

130 COLUMBIA COUNTY GA 31379 8049 7.2% 14.0%

131 COLUMBUS GA 229000 6756 4.7% 4.7%

132 CUMMING GA 21512 1845 17.3% 17.3%

133 DALTON UTILITIES 1 of 4 GA 24829 221 1.4% 1.4%

134 DALTON UTILITIES 2 of 4 GA 24829 69 4.5% 4.5%

135 DALTON UTILITIES 3 of 4 GA 24829 38 10.0% 10.0%

136 DALTON UTILITIES 4 of 4 GA 24829 324 45.0% 53.9%

137 DEKALB COUNTY GA 670000 2202 14.5% 14.5%

138 ELLIJAY-GILMER CO. WATER AUTH. GA 13010 374 20.6% 20.6%

139 ETOWAH GA 13843 303 27.0% 27.0%

140 FIELDALE CORP. 1 of 5 GA 5 1013 19.0% 19.1%

141 FIELDALE CORP. 2 of 5 GA 5 1013 19.0% 19.1%

142 FIELDALE CORP. 3 of 5 GA 5 1013 19.0% 19.1%

143 FIELDALE CORP. 4 of 5 GA 5 1013 19.0% 19.1%

144 FIELDALE CORP. 5 of 5 GA 5 1013 19.0% 19.1%

145 FLOYD COUNTY GA 13913 2412 3.9% 3.9%

146 FORSYTH CO. WATER & SEWER GA 114499 1845 17.3% 17.3%

147 GAINESVILLE 1 of 2 GA 63310 1845 17.3% 17.3%

148 GAINESVILLE 2 of 2 GA 63310 874 22.1% 22.1%

149 GWINNETT CO. DEPT. OF WATER 

RESOURCES 1 of 2 GA 374861 1845 17.3% 17.3%

150 GWINNETT CO. DEPT. OF WATER 

RESOURCES 2 of 2 GA 374861 1845 17.3% 17.3%

151 HARRIS COUNTY WATER SYSTEM GA 19209 6342 5.0% 5.0%

152 HARTWELL GA 7116 3525 15.0% 26.8%

153 HELEN 1 of 4 GA 328 234 58.0% 58.0%

154 HELEN 2 of 4 GA 328 234 58.0% 58.0%

155 HELEN 3 of 4 GA 328 234 58.0% 58.0%

156 HELEN 4 of 4 GA 328 234 58.0% 58.0%

157 HIAWASSEE GA 5496 217 63.5% 63.5%

158 LAFAYETTE GA 3635 52 2.7% 2.7%

159 LAGRANGE GA 41852 4900 6.5% 6.5%

(Continued)

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (4 of 7 pages)
A P P E N D I X

39

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

160 LAVONIA GA 4004 3525 15.0% 26.8%

161 LINCOLNTON GA 1657 7342 7.9% 14.4%

162 LYERLY 1 of 3 GA 408 369 2.0% 2.0%

163 LYERLY 2 of 3 GA 408 369 2.0% 2.0%

164 LYERLY 3 of 3 GA 408 369 2.0% 2.0%

165 MCCAYSVILLE GA 7020 740 47.5% 47.5%

166 MOUNT SHORES CONDO 

ASSOCIATION GA 302 478 26.5% 26.5%

167 MT. YONAH ESTATES HOA GA 198 318 43.5% 43.5%

168 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 1 of 8 GA 1560 51 19.9% 20.0%

169 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 2 of 8 GA 1560 51 19.9% 20.0%

170 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 3 of 8 GA 1560 29 29.4% 29.4%

171 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 4 of 8 GA 1560 396 34.1% 34.1%

172 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 5 of 8 GA 1560 396 34.1% 34.1%

173 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 6 of 8 GA 1560 356 37.6% 37.6%

174 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 7 of 8 GA 1560 356 37.6% 37.6%

175 NOTLA WATER AUTHORITY 8 of 8 GA 1560 356 37.6% 37.6%

176 POOLER 1 of 2 GA 3770 10790 5.3% 10.4%

177 POOLER 2 of 2 GA 3770 10790 5.3% 10.4%

178 RINCON 1 of 2 GA 4940 10790 5.3% 10.4%

179 RINCON 2 of 2 GA 4940 10607 5.4% 10.6%

180 RINGGOLD GA 2743 65 1.3% 1.3%

181 ROME 1 of 2 GA 22793 2559 3.7% 3.7%

182 ROME 2 of 2 GA 22793 2787 15.7% 16.7%

183 ROYSTON GA 1400 172 3.0% 3.0%

184 SAVANNAH-I & D 1 of 4 GA 2625 10790 5.3% 10.4%

185 SAVANNAH-I & D 2 of 4 GA 2625 10790 5.3% 10.4%

186 SAVANNAH-I & D 3 of 4 GA 2625 10790 5.3% 10.4%

187 SAVANNAH-I & D 4 of 4 GA 2625 10607 5.4% 10.6%

188 SUMMERVILLE GA 5826 338 1.8% 1.8%

189 THOMSON-MCDUFFIE CO W&S 

COMM GA 8859 7342 7.9% 14.4%

190 TOCCOA GA 24960 44 33.0% 33.0%

191 USA-CAMP FRANK D. MERRILL GA 426 74 89.1% 89.1%

192 USFS-LAKE CONASAUGA REC.AREA GA 75 18 99.7% 99.7%

193 WALNUT MOUNTAIN S/D POA GA 619 112 28.2% 28.2%

194 WASHINGTON GA 2052 7342 7.9% 14.4%

195 WEST POINT GA 3929 5958 5.4% 5.4%

196 WHITE CO WATER & SEWERAGE 

AUTH GA 4420 55 9.6% 9.6%

197 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297492 0.2% 4.2%

198 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.2% 8.3%

199 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.2% 8.3%

200 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.2% 8.3%

201 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.2% 8.3%

202 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297858 0.2% 4.2%

(Continued)

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (5 of 7 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

40

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

203 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 772398 0.1% 4.9%

204 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772398 0.1% 4.9%

205 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772398 0.1% 4.9%

206 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772183 0.1% 4.9%

207 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772398 0.1% 4.9%

208 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768616 0.1% 4.9%

209 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772288 0.1% 4.9%

210 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772398 0.1% 4.9%

211 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772288 0.1% 4.9%

212 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772288 0.1% 4.9%

213 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772398 0.1% 4.9%

214 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772398 0.1% 4.9%

215 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

216 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

217 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772288 0.1% 4.9%

218 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772288 0.1% 4.9%

219 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772398 0.1% 4.9%

220 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772451 0.1% 4.9%

221 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772398 0.1% 4.9%

222 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772288 0.1% 4.9%

223 ST BERNARD PAR WATERWORK LA 33000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

224 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 EB LA 29517 772398 0.1% 4.9%

225 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 WB LA 31485 772398 0.1% 4.9%

226 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772288 0.1% 4.9%

227 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772288 0.1% 4.9%

228 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772288 0.1% 4.9%

229 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772288 0.1% 4.9%

230 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772398 0.1% 4.9%

231 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772398 0.1% 4.9%

232 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772398 0.1% 4.9%

233 SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 1 of 2 MS 533 46494 1.5% 10.1%

234 SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 2 of 2 MS 533 46116 1.6% 10.2%

235 FONTANA VILLAGE RESORT WTP NC 950 2996 1.3% 28.8%

236 KING MOUNTAIN CLUB WATER 1 of 2 NC 75 188 21.3% 38.7%

237 KING MOUNTAIN CLUB WATER 2 of 2 NC 75 188 21.3% 38.7%

238 MURPHY, TOWN OF NC 4240 696 24.6% 45.2%

239 ANDERSON REGIONAL WTR SYS SC 25 3525 15.0% 26.8%

240 BJW&SA 1 of 3 SC 16468 10790 5.3% 10.4%

241 BJW&SA 2 of 3 SC 16468 10790 5.3% 10.4%

242 BJW&SA 3 of 3 SC 16468 10607 5.4% 10.6%

243 EDGEFIELD CO W&SA SC 24652 8139 7.1% 13.8%

244 MCCORMICK CPW SC 2678 7342 7.9% 14.4%

245 NORTH AUGUSTA CITY OF SC 26273 8139 7.1% 13.8%

(Continued)

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (6 of 7 pages)
A P P E N D I X

41

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population served 

by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Chattahoochee

NF only 

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

 

millions m3/year

246 129 MOTORCYCLE PIT STOP TN 50 3912 1.0% 31.9%

247 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54836 1.3% 8.6%

248 CIRCLE VALLEY TRAILER PARK TN 50 23649 0.2% 13.9%

249 CLEVELAND UTILITIES TN 38754 3549 18.8% 38.2%

250 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48338 1.5% 9.7%

251 COPPER BASIN UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2783 842 43.1% 45.7%

252 DAYTON WATER DEPT TN 21235 28259 2.5% 16.4%

253 DECATUR WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 2810 23649 0.2% 13.9%

254 DECATUR WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 2810 23649 0.2% 13.9%

255 E.I. DUPONT, NEW JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54924 1.3% 8.5%

256 EASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 48211 28645 2.5% 16.2%

257 ETOWAH UTILITIES TN 11895 2123 14.4% 40.0%

258 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56377 1.3% 8.3%

259 FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN COUNTY TN 6669 46494 1.5% 10.1%

260 GRASSHOPPER CREEK P.U.A. TN 100 28259 2.5% 16.4%

261 HIWASSEE UTILITY COMMISSION TN 98 3549 18.8% 38.2%

262 KINGSTON WATER SYSTEM TN 4547 16731 0.2% 18.7%

263 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 1 of 2 TN 11445 16393 0.2% 19.1%

264 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 2 of 2 TN 11445 16393 0.2% 19.1%

265 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 1 of 2 TN 6141 16393 0.2% 19.1%

266 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 2 of 2 TN 6141 16393 0.2% 19.1%

267 NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER DEPT TN 2602 49168 1.5% 9.5%

268 OLIN CORPORATION TN 624 3990 16.8% 34.0%

269 PARSONS WATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49168 1.5% 9.5%

270 PARSONS WATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49168 1.5% 9.5%

271 RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS TN 650 3549 18.8% 38.2%

272 RIVERSIDE CATFISH HOUSE TN 30 30074 2.4% 15.4%

273 ROCKWOOD WATER SYSTEM TN 9273 23124 0.2% 14.2%

274 SHADY GROVE HARBOR MARINA TN 30 28482 2.5% 16.3%

275 SOUTH BLOUNT UTILITY DISTRICT TN 36601 3912 1.0% 31.9%

276 SOUTH PITTSBURG WATER SYSTEM TN 6522 31480 2.3% 14.7%

277 SPRING CITY WATER SYSTEM TN 2554 23397 0.2% 14.0%

278 TELLICO AREA SERVICES SYSTEM TN 9475 3912 1.0% 31.9%

279 TENN-AMERICAN WATER 

COMPANY TN 185910 29949 2.4% 15.5%

280 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 3723 23397 0.2% 14.0%

281 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 3723 23397 0.2% 14.0%

282 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 3723 23397 0.2% 14.0%

283 WAVERLY WATER DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54836 1.3% 8.6%

a This percentage includes water from Chattahoochee National Forest.

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

Chattahoochee National Forest (7 of 7 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

42

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

Cherokee National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 5% annual water supply from Cherokee National Forest
A P P E N D I X

43

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

Public water system intakes receiving water from Cherokee National Forest (1 of 5 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Cherokee NF

only

Percent from 

all NFS landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBERTVILLE UTILITIES BOARD AL 30186 33758 3.7% 13.8%

2 ARAB WATER WORKS BOARD AL 17576 34017 3.7% 13.7%

3 BRIDGEPORT UTILITIES BOARD AL 6000 31495 4.0% 14.7%

4 CENTRE WATER & SEWER BOARD AL 6012 7005 0.4% 8.1%

5 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44337 2.8% 10.6%

6 CLANTON WATER DEPARTMENT AL 13500 12874 0.2% 7.5%

7 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL WATER 

SYSTEM AL 10731 44235 2.8% 10.6%

8 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 

BOARD OF) AL 77100 37784 3.3% 12.4%

9 DEKALB-JACKSON WATER SUPPLY 

DISTRICT AL 40 31714 3.9% 14.6%

10 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 1 of 4 AL 1813 19754 0.1% 5.3%

11 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 2 of 4 AL 1813 19723 0.1% 5.3%

12 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 3 of 4 AL 1813 19723 0.1% 5.3%

13 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 4 of 4 AL 1813 19723 0.1% 5.3%

14 FIVE STAR WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 100 19658 0.1% 5.3%

15 FLORENCE WATER-WASTEWATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43340 2.9% 10.8%

16 FLORENCE WATER-WASTEWATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43340 2.9% 10.8%

17 FORT PAYNE WATER WORKS BOARD AL 7248 32805 3.8% 14.2%

18 GADSDEN WATER WORKS AND 

SEWER BOARD AL 46551 8144 0.4% 7.7%

19 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43340 2.9% 10.8%

20 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43340 2.9% 10.8%

21 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 6375 34017 3.7% 13.7%

22 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 6375 34017 3.7% 13.7%

23 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 31310 36904 3.4% 12.6%

24 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 31310 35738 3.5% 13.0%

25 LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 14625 37977 3.3% 12.3%

26 MARBURY WATER SYSTEM, INC. AL 3660 19754 0.1% 5.3%

27 MILLBROOK UTILITIES AL 4503 19754 0.1% 5.3%

28 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 1 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

29 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 2 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

30 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 3 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

31 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 4 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

32 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 5 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

33 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 6 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

34 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 7 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

35 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 8 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

36 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 9 of 10 AL 5601 19810 0.1% 5.3%

37 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 10 of 10 AL 5601 19723 0.1% 5.3%

38 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6185 34017 3.7% 13.7%

39 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 6185 34017 3.7% 13.7%

40 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM

1 of 3 AL 9375 33758 3.7% 13.8%

41 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM

2 of 3 AL 9375 32805 3.8% 14.2%

42 NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER

SYSTEM

3 of 3 AL 9375 32805 3.8% 14.2%

43 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 1 of 4 AL 3788 10117 0.3% 8.1%

44 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 2 of 4 AL 3788 10117 0.3% 8.1%

45 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 3 of 4 AL 3788 10117 0.3% 8.1%

46 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 4 of 4 AL 3788 9977 0.3% 8.2%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

44

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Cherokee National Forest (2 of 5 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Cherokee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

47 PINEHILL WATER DEPARTMENT AL 2475 28225 0.1% 4.4%

48 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 1 of 11 AL 2330 20502 0.1% 5.1%

49 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 2 of 11 AL 2330 20502 0.1% 5.1%

50 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 3 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

51 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 4 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

52 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 5 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

53 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 6 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

54 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 7 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

55 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 8 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

56 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 9 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

57 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 10 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

58 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 11 of 11 AL 2330 19810 0.1% 5.3%

59 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 1 of 2 AL 10950 32805 3.8% 14.2%

60 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 2 of 2 AL 10950 32805 3.8% 14.2%

61 SECTION-DUTTON WATER SYSTEM AL 32682 32805 3.8% 14.2%

62 SHEFFIELD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44235 2.8% 10.6%

63 SHELBY COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 32337 11472 0.3% 8.2%

64 SOUTHSIDE WATER WORKS AL 5357 8682 0.3% 7.2%

65 SPANISH FORT WATER SYSTEM AL 2688 61837 < 0.05% 3.1%

66 TALLADEGA-SHELBY WATER 

TREATMENT PLANT AL 32 10728 0.3% 8.2%

67 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 1 of 5 AL 2187 19754 0.1% 5.3%

68 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 2 of 5 AL 2187 19754 0.1% 5.3%

69 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 3 of 5 AL 2187 19754 0.1% 5.3%

70 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 4 of 5 AL 2187 19723 0.1% 5.3%

71 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 5 of 5 AL 2187 19723 0.1% 5.3%

72 US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 1 of 2 AL 14250 35738 3.5% 13.0%

73 US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 2 of 2 AL 14250 35738 3.5% 13.0%

74 WEST MORGAN-EAST LAWRENCE 

WATER AUTHORIT AL 26130 38111 3.3% 12.3%

75 WILCOX COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 1319 27453 0.1% 4.5%

76 WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER SYSTEM AL 2400 43340 2.9% 10.8%

77 CALHOUN 1 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

78 CALHOUN 2 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

79 CALHOUN 3 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

80 CALHOUN 4 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

81 CALHOUN 5 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

82 CALHOUN 6 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

83 CALHOUN 7 of 7 GA 6136 2235 1.3% 16.9%

84 DALTON UTILITIES GA 24829 325 9.1% 53.9%

85 ROME GA 22793 2788 1.0% 16.7%

86 ASHLAND WATER WORKS KY 44402 89807 < 0.05% 5.4%

87 HARDIN CO. WATER DIST #1/FT. 

KNOX

1 of 2 KY 8480 137706 < 0.05% 4.2%

88 HARDIN CO. WATER DIST #1/FT. 

KNOX

2 of 2 KY 8480 137706 < 0.05% 4.2%

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

45

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Cherokee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

89 HARDIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 

#1 KY 9900 137706 < 0.05% 4.2%

90 HENDERSON MUNICIPAL WATER 

& SEWER KY 31696 158419 < 0.05% 3.8%

91 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 1 of 2 KY 365306 132027 < 0.05% 4.4%

92 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 2 of 2 KY 365306 132027 < 0.05% 4.4%

93 MAYSVILLE UTILITY COMMISSION KY 15548 101543 < 0.05% 4.9%

94 MORGANFIELD WATER WORKS KY 5495 158638 < 0.05% 3.8%

95 NORTHERN KENTUCKY WATER 

SERVICE KY 67221 102928 < 0.05% 4.8%

96 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297413 0.4% 4.2%

97 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.2% 8.3%

98 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.2% 8.3%

99 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.2% 8.3%

100 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.2% 8.3%

101 RUSSELL WATER COMPANY KY 7425 89992 < 0.05% 5.4%

102 STURGIS WATER WORKS KY 3677 207542 < 0.05% 3.1%

103 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297779 0.4% 4.2%

104 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 0.2% 4.9%

105 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 766843 0.2% 4.9%

106 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 0.2% 4.9%

107 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 0.2% 4.9%

108 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 0.2% 4.9%

109 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 0.2% 4.9%

110 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 0.2% 4.9%

111 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 0.2% 4.9%

112 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 0.2% 4.9%

113 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 0.2% 4.9%

114 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

115 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

116 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

117 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

118 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 0.2% 4.9%

119 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 0.2% 4.9%

120 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 0.2% 4.9%

121 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766896 0.2% 4.9%

122 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766843 0.2% 4.9%

123 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 0.2% 4.9%

124 ST BERNARD PAR WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

125 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 EB LA 29517 766843 0.2% 4.9%

126 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 WB LA 31485 766843 0.2% 4.9%

127 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 0.2% 4.9%

128 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 0.2% 4.9%

129 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 0.2% 4.9%

130 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 0.2% 4.9%

131 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

132 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

133 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 0.2% 4.9%

134 SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT

1 of 2 MS 533 46506 2.7% 10.1%

135 SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT

2 of 2 MS 533 46128 2.7% 10.2%

136 BEECH MOUNTAIN, TOWN OF 1 of 2 NC 1209 342 6.1% 6.9%

137 BEECH MOUNTAIN, TOWN OF 2 of 2 NC 1209 342 6.1% 6.9%

138 CLEVELAND COUNTY WATER NC 19149 342 0.3% 1.0%

139 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 1 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

140 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 2 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

141 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 3 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

(Continued)

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Cherokee National Forest (3 of 5 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

46

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Cherokee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

142 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 4 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

143 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 5 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

144 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 6 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

145 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 7 of 7 NC 98 342 0.3% 1.0%

146 129 MOTORCYCLE PIT STOP TN 50 3921 3.2% 31.9%

147 BLUFF CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TN 2467 895 14.8% 32.2%

148 BRISTOL DEPT. UTILITIES TN 29362 841 14.6% 33.1%

149 BRISTOL-BLUFF CITY UTILITY 

DISTRICT

TN 5254 895 14.8% 32.2%

150 BROWNLOW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 218 191 10.2% 10.2%

151 BROWNLOW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 218 191 10.2% 10.2%

152 BUSH BROTHERS #3 TN 323 5764 4.7% 19.8%

153 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54848 2.3% 8.6%

154 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 360 581 10.9% 11.4%

155 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 360 581 10.9% 11.4%

156 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 360 581 10.9% 11.4%

157 CIRCLE VALLEY TRAILER PARK TN 50 23663 3.9% 13.9%

158 CLEVELAND UTILITIES TN 38754 3550 9.4% 38.2%

159 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48350 2.6% 9.7%

160 COLD SPRINGS UTILITY DISTRICT TN 767 36 12.5% 12.5%

161 COPPER BASIN UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2783 842 2.6% 45.7%

162 DAYTON WATER DEPT TN 21235 28274 4.4% 16.4%

163 DECATUR WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 2810 23663 3.9% 13.9%

164 DECATUR WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 2810 23663 3.9% 13.9%

165 E.I. DUPONT, NEW JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54936 2.3% 8.5%

166 EASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 48211 28660 4.4% 16.2%

167 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 1 of 3 TN 8964 977 19.9% 20.2%

168 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 2 of 3 TN 8964 165 38.7% 39.0%

169 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 3 of 3 TN 8964 165 38.7% 39.0%

170 ERWIN UTILITIES 1 of 4 TN 3113 1093 8.7% 22.2%

171 ERWIN UTILITIES 2 of 4 TN 3113 70 57.5% 57.5%

172 ERWIN UTILITIES 3 of 4 TN 3113 70 57.5% 57.5%

173 ERWIN UTILITIES 4 of 4 TN 3113 70 57.5% 57.5%

174 ETOWAH UTILITIES TN 11895 2127 9.0% 40.0%

175 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56389 2.2% 8.3%

176 FIRST U D OF CARTER CO 1 of 2 TN 4094 71 63.7% 63.7%

177 FIRST U D OF CARTER CO 2 of 2 TN 4094 71 63.7% 63.7%

178 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 1 of 2 TN 9356 3205 10.2% 16.7%

179 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 2 of 2 TN 9356 3205 10.2% 16.7%

180 FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN COUNTY TN 6669 46506 2.7% 10.1%

181 FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX COUNT 1 of 2 TN 40625 11685 5.1% 14.4%

182 FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX COUNT 2 of 2 TN 40625 11685 5.1% 14.4%

183 GRASSHOPPER CREEK P.U.A. TN 100 28274 4.4% 16.4%

184 GREENEVILLE WATER & LIGHT 

COMM TN 24361 1407 10.3% 20.8%

185 HIWASSEE UTILITY COMMISSION TN 98 3550 9.4% 38.2%

186 JACOBS CREEK JOB CORPS CENTER 

- USFS

TN 300 783 15.1% 34.9%

187 JEFFERSON CITY WATER & SEWER C 1 of 2 TN 4197 3817 8.6% 14.0%

188 JEFFERSON CITY WATER & SEWER C 2 of 2 TN 4197 3817 8.6% 14.0%

189 JOHNSON CITY WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 47998 977 19.9% 20.2%

190 JOHNSON CITY WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 47998 70 57.5% 57.5%

191 JONESBOROUGH WATER DEPT TN 26501 1185 10.9% 23.4%

192 KINGSPORT WATER DEPT TN 91499 2368 13.8% 20.5%

193 KINGSTON WATER SYSTEM TN 4547 16745 5.5% 18.7%

194 KNOX-CHAPMAN UTILITY DISTRICT TN 30691 6544 4.2% 17.5%

195 KNOXVILLE UTILITIES BOARD-KUB TN 236338 11497 5.2% 14.6%

196 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 702 3380 9.7% 15.9%

(Continued)

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Cherokee National Forest (4 of 5 pages) 
A P P E N D I X

47

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Cherokee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

197 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 702 3380 9.7% 15.9%

198 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 1 of 2 TN 11445 16407 5.6% 19.1%

199 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 2 of 2 TN 11445 16407 5.6% 19.1%

200 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 1 of 2 TN 6141 16407 5.6% 19.1%

201 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 2 of 2 TN 6141 16407 5.6% 19.1%

202 LUTTRELL-BLAINE-CORRYTON U.D. TN 1760 3855 8.5% 13.9%

203 MIDWAY MARKET TN 25 87 5.2% 5.2%

204 MORRISTOWN WATER SYSTEM TN 15509 3649 9.0% 14.7%

205 MOUNTAIN CITY WATER DEPT. 1 of 4 TN 2422 36 12.5% 12.5%

206 MOUNTAINCITY WATER DEPT. 2 of 4 TN 2422 47 24.0% 24.0%

207 MOUNTAIN CITY WATER DEPT. 3 of 4 TN 2422 51 39.1% 40.2%

208 MOUNTAIN CITY WATER DEPT. 4 of 4 TN 2422 51 39.1% 40.2%

209 NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER DEPT TN 2602 49180 2.5% 9.5%

210 NEWPORT UTILITIES BOARD TN 25037 2502 3.5% 24.5%

211 NORTHEAST KNOX U D TN 21048 4173 7.8% 12.8%

212 OLIN CORPORATION TN 624 3991 8.4% 34.0%

213 PARSONS WATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49180 2.5% 9.5%

214 PARSONS WATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49180 2.5% 9.5%

215 PERSIAUTILITY DISTRICT TN 4414 3444 9.5% 15.6%

216 PIGEON FORGE WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 7062 5764 4.7% 19.8%

217 RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS TN 650 3550 9.4% 38.2%

218 RIVERSIDE CATFISH HOUSE TN 30 30089 4.2% 15.4%

219 ROCKWOOD WATER SYSTEM TN 9273 23139 4.0% 14.2%

220 SEVIERVILLE WATER SYSTEM TN 31278 6458 4.2% 17.7%

221 SHADY GROVE HARBOR MARINA TN 30 28497 4.4% 16.3%

222 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 862 977 19.9% 20.2%

223 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 862 977 19.9% 20.2%

224 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 862 977 19.9% 20.2%

225 SOUTH BLOUNT UTILITY DISTRICT TN 36601 3921 3.2% 31.9%

226 SOUTH PITTSBURG WATER 

SYSTEM TN 6522 31495 4.0% 14.7%

227 SPRING CITY WATER SYSTEM TN 2554 23411 3.9% 14.0%

228 SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 1179 3380 9.7% 15.9%

229 SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 1179 3380 9.7% 15.9%

230 TELLICO AREA SERVICES SYSTEM TN 9475 3921 3.2% 31.9%

231 TENN-AMERICAN WATER 

COMPANY TN 185910 29964 4.2% 15.5%

232 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 3723 23411 3.9% 14.0%

233 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 3723 23411 3.9% 14.0%

234 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 3723 23411 3.9% 14.0%

235 WAVERLY WATER DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54848 2.3% 8.6%

236 WHITE PINE WATER SYSTEM 1 of 2 TN 1057 5594 4.9% 20.4%

237 WHITE PINE WATER SYSTEM 2 of 2 TN 1057 5594 4.9% 20.4%

238 WITT UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2498 2028 8.4% 15.7%

239 BRISTOL VIRGINIA UTILITY BOARD VA 20000 705 10.9% 32.9%

240 FRIES, TOWN OF VA 484 1857 < 0.05% 3.5%

241 NARROWS, TOWN OF VA 630 5193 < 0.05% 9.9%

242 PULASKI COUNTY PSA VA 9452 3298 < 0.05% 6.3%

243 RADFORD ARMY AMMUNITION 

PLANT - 419 1 of 2 VA 690 4012 < 0.05% 6.0%

244 RADFORD ARMY AMMUNITION 

PLANT - 419 2 of 2 VA 690 4012 < 0.05% 6.0%

245 RADFORD, CITY OF VA 15859 3935 < 0.05% 6.1%

246 RAM/WAYSIDE COMMUNITY 

WATER SYSTEM VA 93 5193 < 0.05% 9.9%

247 WASHINGTON COUNTY SERVICE 

AUTHORITY VA 4757 77 5.4% 68.3%

a This percentage includes water from Cherokee National Forest.

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Cherokee National Forest (5 of 5 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

48

Conecuh National Forest in Alabama

Streams and rivers flowing from Conecuh National Forest 

No public water system intakes receive water from Conecuh National Forest
No public water system intakes receive water from Conecuh National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

50

Croatan National Forest in North Carolina

Streams and rivers flowing from Croatan National Forest

No public water system intakes receive water from Croatan National Forest
No public water system intakes receive water from Croatan National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

52

Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky

Daniel Boone National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 5% annual water supply from Daniel Boone National Forest
A P P E N D I X

53

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Daniel Boone

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBANY WATER WORKS KY 7351 9744 8.7% 8.7%

2 BARKLEY LAKE WATER DISTRICT KY 16038 29482 2.9% 3.4%

3 BEATTYVILLE WATER WORKS KY 6783 3710 9.1% 9.1%

4 BEECH FORK WATER COMMISSION 1 of 2 KY 13 539 23.4% 23.5%

5 BEECH FORK WATER COMMISSION 2 of 2 KY 13 539 23.4% 23.5%

6 BOONEVILLE WATER AND SEWER KY 5495 1090 26.1% 26.1%

7 BURKESVILLE WATER WORKS KY 3219 10075 8.4% 8.4%

8 BURNSIDE WATER COMPANY KY 2284 8120 10.4% 10.5%

9 CAMPTON WATER SYSTEM 1 of 2 KY 3300 30 36.9% 36.9%

10 CAMPTON WATER SYSTEM 2 of 2 KY 3300 30 36.9% 36.9%

11 CARLISLE WATER DEPARTMENT KY 1390 2622 10.4% 10.4%

12 CAVE RUN REGIONAL WT COMM KY 25 83 6.8% 6.9%

13 CORBIN UTILITIES COMMISSION KY 17327 470 12.2% 12.2%

14 CRITTENDEN-LIVINGSTON CO WATER 

DISTRICT KY 9079 30309 2.8% 3.6%

15 CYNTHIANA MUNICIPAL WATER 

WORKS KY 3921 2881 9.5% 9.5%

16 EDDYVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 KY 1839 29832 2.8% 3.6%

17 EDDYVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 KY 1839 29832 2.8% 3.6%

18 FALMOUTH WATER DEPARTMENT KY 3861 4906 5.6% 5.6%

19 FRANKFORT PLANT BOARD KY 52153 7826 7.1% 7.1%

20 HARDIN CO. WATER DIST #1/FT. KNOX 1 of 2 KY 8480 137706 0.6% 4.2%

21 HARDIN CO. WATER DIST #1/FT. KNOX 2 of 2 KY 8480 137706 0.6% 4.2%

22 HARDIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT #1 KY 9900 137706 0.6% 4.2%

23 HARRODSBURG MUNICIPAL WATER 

DEPARTMENT KY 12572 7454 7.4% 7.4%

24 HENDERSON MUNICIPAL WATER & 

SEWER KY 31696 158419 0.5% 3.8%

25 HYDEN LESLIE CO WATER DISTRICT KY 9587 310 6.3% 6.3%

26 IRVINE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES KY 6386 4515 9.4% 9.4%

27 JAMESTOWN MUNICIPAL WATER 

WORKS KY 10799 9591 8.8% 8.8%

28 KENTUCKY STATE PENITENTIARY KY 1000 29832 2.8% 3.6%

29 KENTUCKY-AMERICAN WATER CO 1 of 2 KY 80311 5880 9.4% 9.4%

30 KENTUCKY-AMERICAN WATER CO 2 of 2 KY 80311 5880 9.4% 9.4%

31 KETTLE ISLAND WATER SYSTEM KY 112 141 < 0.05% < 0.05%

32 KNOX COUNTY UTILITY COMMISSION KY 7948 1279 < 0.05% 0.1%

33 KUTTAWA WATER DEPARTMENT KY 853 29922 2.8% 3.6%

34 LANCASTER WATER WORKS KY 2222 6468 8.5% 8.6%

35 LAWRENCEBURG WATER & SEWER 

DEPT KY 19305 7727 7.2% 7.2%

36 LONDON UTILITY COMMISSION KY 11288 470 12.2% 12.2%

37 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 1 of 2 KY 365306 132027 0.6% 4.4%

38 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 2 of 2 KY 365306 132027 0.6% 4.4%

39 MANCHESTER WATER WORKS 1 of 3 KY 4129 410 12.3% 12.3%

40 MANCHESTER WATER WORKS 2 of 3 KY 4129 410 12.3% 12.3%

41 MANCHESTER WATER WORKS 3 of 3 KY 4129 343 13.2% 13.2%

Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky

Public water system intakes receiving water from Daniel Boone National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

54

Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Daniel Boone National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Daniel Boone

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

42 MCCREARY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1 of 2 KY 9112 2228 6.2% 6.2%

43 MCCREARY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 2 of 2 KY 9112 146 39.1% 39.1%

44 MCKEE WATER WORKS KY 1990 34 37.6% 37.6%

45 MONTICELLO WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION KY 23166 8720 9.7% 9.7%

46 MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY 1 of 2 KY 3250 274 28.4% 28.5%

47 MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY 2 of 2 KY 3250 274 28.4% 28.5%

48 MOREHEAD UTILITY PLANT BOARD KY 9970 1588 17.2% 17.2%

49 MORGANFIELD WATER WORKS KY 5495 158638 0.5% 3.8%

50 MT VERNON WATER WORKS KY 5931 150 3.7% 3.7%

51 NICHOLASVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT KY 20552 6468 8.5% 8.6%

52 NORTHERN KENTUCKY WATER SERVICE 1 of 2 KY 67221 5494 5.0% 5.0%

53 NORTHERN KENTUCKY WATER SERVICE 2 of 2 KY 67221 310 6.3% 6.3%

54 PADUCAH WATER WORKS KY 8002 297413 0.6% 4.2%

55 PINE MT SETTLEMENT SCHOOL KY 45 108 5.0% 5.0%

56 PRINCETON WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION KY 10288 29832 2.8% 3.6%

57 RICHMOND UTILITIES KY 35102 5372 10.3% 10.3%

58 SOMERSET WATER SERVICE KY 29700 8657 9.8% 9.8%

59 STURGIS WATER WORKS KY 3677 207542 0.4% 3.1%

60 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297779 0.6% 4.2%

61 VERSAILLES WATER SYSTEM KY 17822 7727 7.2% 7.2%

62 WEST LIBERTY WATER COMPANY KY 2655 973 7.1% 7.2%

63 WESTERN FLEMING WATER DISTRICT KY 3888 2694 10.1% 10.2%

64 WILLIAMSBURG WATER DEPARTMENT KY 5474 2640 0.3% 0.3%

65 WILMORE WATER WORKS KY 5652 7454 7.4% 7.4%

66 WINCHESTER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 1 of 2 KY 15354 5880 9.4% 9.4%

67 WINCHESTER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 2 of 2 KY 15354 5744 9.6% 9.6%

68 WOOD CREEK WATER DISTRICT KY 13953 88 3.0% 3.0%

69 WOODSON BEND PROPERTY OWNERS 

ASSOC KY 1455 2638 6.5% 6.5%

70 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 0.2% 4.9%

71 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 766843 0.2% 4.9%

72 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 0.2% 4.9%

73 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 0.2% 4.9%

74 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 0.2% 4.9%

75 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 0.2% 4.9%

76 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 0.2% 4.9%

77 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 0.2% 4.9%

78 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 0.2% 4.9%

79 MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 0.2% 4.9%

80 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

81 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

82 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

83 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

84 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 0.2% 4.9%

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

55

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Daniel Boone

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

85 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 0.2% 4.9%

86 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 0.2% 4.9%

87 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766843 0.2% 4.9%

88 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766896 0.2% 4.9%

89 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 0.2% 4.9%

90 ST BERNARD PAR WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

91 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 EB LA 29517 766843 0.2% 4.9%

92 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 WB LA 31485 766843 0.2% 4.9%

93 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 0.2% 4.9%

94 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 0.2% 4.9%

95 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 0.2% 4.9%

96 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 0.2% 4.9%

97 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

98 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

99 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 0.2% 4.9%

100 CARTHAGE WATER SYSTEM TN 2718 18739 4.5% 4.5%

101 CLARKSVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT TN 177348 24901 3.4% 3.4%

102 CUNNINGHAM EAST MONT WAT TR PL TN 25 24799 3.4% 3.4%

103 DOVER WATER DEPT TN 3996 27996 3.0% 3.0%

104 E.I. DUPONT, OLD HICKORY TN 1250 20132 4.2% 4.2%

105 ERIN WATER DEPARTMENT TN 7001 27334 3.1% 3.1%

106 GAINESBORO WATER SYSTEM TN 1589 13385 6.3% 6.3%

107 GALLATIN WATER DEPARTMENT TN 41083 19841 4.3% 4.3%

108 HARPETH VALLEY U D TN 56440 22538 3.8% 3.8%

109 HARTSVILLE WATER DEPT TN 8667 19146 4.4% 4.4%

110 HENDERSONVILLE U D TN 49144 20132 4.2% 4.2%

111 JELLICO WATER DEPT TN 4387 102 2.2% 2.2%

112 LEBANON WATER SYSTEM TN 33323 19429 4.4% 4.4%

113 LIVINGSTON WATER DEPT TN 4190 12649 6.7% 6.7%

114 MADISON SUBURBAN UD TN 68205 22202 3.8% 3.8%

115 NASHVILLE WATER DEPT #1 1 of 2 TN 299798 22297 3.8% 3.8%

116 NASHVILLE WATER DEPT #1 2 of 2 TN 299798 22202 3.8% 3.8%

117 NORTH STEWART UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 4 TN 1322 27996 3.0% 3.0%

118 NORTH STEWART UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 4 TN 1322 27996 3.0% 3.0%

119 NORTH STEWART UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 4 TN 1322 27996 3.0% 3.0%

120 NORTH STEWART UTILITY DISTRICT 4 of 4 TN 1322 27996 3.0% 3.0%

121 NORTHWEST CLAY COUNTY UTILITY TN 3733 12539 6.7% 6.8%

122 OLD HICKORY UTILITY DISTRICT TN 4063 20132 4.2% 4.2%

123 PLEASANT VIEW UTILITY DISTRICT TN 13788 24542 3.4% 3.5%

124 RIVER ROAD UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2909 22612 3.7% 3.8%

125 WATER AUTH. OF DICKSON COUNTY TN 17100 24542 3.4% 3.5%

126 WEST WILSON UTILITY DISTRICT TN 56990 20132 4.2% 4.2%

127 WHITE HOUSE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 87329 20132 4.2% 4.2%

a This percentage includes water from Daniel Boone National Forest.

Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Daniel Boone National Forest (3 of 3 pages) 
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

56

Davy Crockett National Forest in Texas

Davy Crockett National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Davy Crockett National Forest
A P P E N D I X

57

Table A.7—Davy Crockett National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Davy 

Crockett NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 1 of 3 TX 20833 11266 1.7% 8.7%

2 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 2 of 3 TX 20833 10079 1.9% 3.4%

3 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 3 of 3 TX 20833 10079 1.9% 9.1%

4 CITY OF HOUSTON TX 16528 15305 0.1% 23.5%

5 CITY OF LOVELADY TX 1140 180 8.4% 23.5%

6 CITY OF ROSE CITY TX 729 11354 1.7% 26.1%

7 TBCD WEST TREATMENT 

PLANT TX 1827 15759 0.1% 8.4%

8 TBCD WINNIE STOWELL TX 3297 10079 1.9% 10.5%

9 WATERWOOD MUD 1 1 of 2 TX 524 13513 0.1% 36.9%

10 WATERWOOD MUD 1 2 of 2 TX 524 13513 0.1% 36.9%

a This percentage includes water from Davy Crockett National Forest.

Davy Crockett National Forest in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Davy Crockett National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

58

Delta National Forest in Mississippi

Delta National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Delta National Forest
A P P E N D I X

59

Delta National Forest in Mississippi

Public water system intakes receiving water from Delta National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Delta NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

2 DALCOUR WATERWORKS 

DIST LA 2666 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

3 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

4 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772169 < 0.05% 4.9%

5 E JEFFERSON WW DIST 

NO 1 LA 308362 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

6 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768603 < 0.05% 4.9%

7 GRAMERCY 

WATERWORKS LA 2800 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

8 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

9 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

10 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

11 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS 

WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

12 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS 

WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

13 NEW ORLEANS 

CARROLLTON WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

14 NEW ORLEANS 

CARROLLTON WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

15 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

16 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

17 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

18 PORT SULPHUR WATER 

DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772437 < 0.05% 4.9%

19 PORT SULPHUR WATER 

DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

20 SHELL CHEMICAL 

COMPANY LA 675 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

21 ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

22

ST CHARLES WATER DIST 

NO 1 EB LA 29517 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

23

ST CHARLES WATER DIST 

NO 2 WB LA 31485 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

24

ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 

1 LA 6120 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

25

ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 

2 LA 9000 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

26

ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 

1 LA 14670 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

27

ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 

2 LA 3702 772274 < 0.05% 4.9%

28

W JEFFERSON WW DIST 

NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

29

W JEFFERSON WW DIST 

NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

30

WESTWEGO 

WATERWORKS LA 8534 772384 < 0.05% 4.9%

a This percentage includes water from Delta National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

60

De Soto National Forest in Mississippi

Streams and rivers flowing from De Soto National Forest 

No public water system intakes receive water from De Soto National Forest
No public water system intakes receive water from De Soto National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

62

Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina

Francis Marion National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Francis Marion National Forest
A P P E N D I X

63

Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina

Public water system intakes receiving water from Francis Marion National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

64

George Washington National Forest in Virginia

George Washington National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from George Washington National Forest
A P P E N D I X

65

George Washington National Forest in Virginia

Public water system intakes receiving water from George Washington National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

George 

Washington 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 AMHERST, TOWN OF VA 5076 109 12.7% 12.9%

2 AUGUSTA SPRINGS - ACSA 1 of 2 VA 137 52 42.6% 42.7%

3 AUGUSTA SPRINGS - ACSA 2 of 2 VA 137 52 42.6% 42.7%

4 BOILING SPRING 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VA 200 155 22.8% 55.2%

5 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 2822 391 44.6% 44.6%

6 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 2822 391 44.6% 44.6%

7 BROADWAY, TOWN OF VA 1224 194 48.3% 48.3%

8 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 1 of 3 VA 308 2091 26.7% 42.5%

9 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 2 of 3 VA 308 2091 26.7% 42.5%

10 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 3 of 3 VA 308 2091 26.7% 42.5%

11 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 1 of 6 VA 185 90 13.9% 14.0%

12 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 2 of 6 VA 185 90 13.9% 14.0%

13 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 3 of 6 VA 185 90 13.9% 14.0%

14 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 4 of 6 VA 185 90 13.9% 14.0%

15 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 5 of 6 VA 185 125 25.1% 25.1%

16 CHURCHVILLE - ACSA 6 of 6 VA 185 125 25.1% 25.1%

17 CLIFTON FORGE, TOWN OF VA 4679 930 37.1% 42.6%

18 COVINGTON, CITY OF VA 7300 643 38.2% 38.3%

19 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 1 of 5 VA 468 52 42.6% 42.7%

20 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 2 of 5 VA 468 52 42.6% 42.7%

21 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 3 of 5 VA 468 52 42.6% 42.7%

22 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 4 of 5 VA 468 52 42.6% 42.7%

23 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 5 of 5 VA 468 52 42.6% 42.7%

24 DEERFIELD - ACSA 1 of 2 VA 70 21 73.6% 73.7%

25 DEERFIELD - ACSA 2 of 2 VA 70 21 73.6% 73.7%

26 EAGLE EYRIE BAPTIST 

CONFERENCE CENTER VA 1000 3362 25.8% 37.4%

27 EDINBURG, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 521 88 31.4% 31.4%

28 EDINBURG, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 521 88 31.4% 31.4%

29 FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER 

AUTHORITY VA 205804 10989 6.1% 7.7%

30 FOOD PROCESSORS WATER 

COOPERATIVE, INC VA 1430 277 33.9% 33.9%

31 FRONT ROYAL, TOWN OF VA 5000 1593 19.0% 19.0%

32 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 1 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

33 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 2 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

34 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 3 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

35 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 4 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

36 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 5 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

37 GEORGE`S CHICKEN, LLC 6 of 6 VA 126 88 31.4% 31.4%

38 HARRISONBURG, CITY OF 1 of 2 VA 16305 391 44.6% 44.6%

39 HARRISONBURG, CITY OF 2 of 2 VA 16305 76 88.4% 88.4%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

66

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

George 

Washington 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

40 HENRICO COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM VA 144500 6715 14.0% 19.9%

41 JAMES RIVER 

CORRECTIONAL CTR VA 6902 6505 14.5% 20.5%

42 JAMES RIVER ESTATES 1 of 2 VA 44 6621 14.2% 20.2%

43 JAMES RIVER ESTATES 2 of 2 VA 44 6621 14.2% 20.2%

44 LEESBURG, TOWN OF VA 23150 10253 6.6% 8.2%

45 LYNCHBURG, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 25333 3524 24.6% 35.7%

46 LYNCHBURG, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 25333 3362 25.8% 37.4%

47 LYNCHBURG, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 25333 73 56.3% 56.3%

48 MAURY SERVICE 

AUTHORITY VA 25 536 32.3% 32.3%

49 MOUNT WEATHER VA 50 2693 19.0% 19.0%

50 NCSA - LOVINGSTON 1 of 3 VA 356 130 20.9% 20.9%

51 NCSA - LOVINGSTON 2 of 3 VA 356 241 24.7% 24.7%

52 NCSA - LOVINGSTON 3 of 3 VA 356 241 24.7% 24.7%

53 NCSA - SCHUYLER VA 480 240 1.3% 1.3%

54 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 1 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

55 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 2 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

56 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 3 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

57 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 4 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

58 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 5 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

59 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 6 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

60 NCSA - WINTERGREEN 7 of 7 VA 959 103 3.1% 3.1%

61 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 33833 9599 9.8% 13.9%

62 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 33833 9599 9.8% 13.9%

63 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 33833 9599 9.8% 13.9%

64 RICHMOND, CITY OF VA 197000 6759 14.0% 19.8%

65 SOUTH RIVER SANITARY 

DISTRICT 1 of 5 VA 4503 85 24.9% 24.9%

66 SOUTH RIVER SANITARY 

DISTRICT 2 of 5 VA 4503 85 24.9% 24.9%

67 SOUTH RIVER SANITARY 

DISTRICT 3 of 5 VA 4503 85 24.9% 24.9%

68 SOUTH RIVER SANITARY 

DISTRICT 4 of 5 VA 4503 85 24.9% 24.9%

69 SOUTH RIVER SANITARY 

DISTRICT 5 of 5 VA 4503 139 35.4% 35.4%

70 STAUNTON, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 7915 161 21.3% 21.3%

71 STAUNTON, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 7915 161 21.3% 21.3%

72 STAUNTON, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 7915 42 99.6% 99.6%

73 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 1 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

74 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 2 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

75 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 3 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

George Washington National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

George Washington National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

67

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

George 

Washington 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

76 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 4 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

77 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 5 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

78 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 6 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

79 STONEY CREEK SANITARY 

DISTRICT 7 of 7 VA 326 40 37.6% 37.7%

80 STRASBURG, TOWN OF VA 6398 626 22.6% 22.6%

81 THE HOMESTEAD WATER 

COMPANY 1 of 3 VA 686 37 21.7% 21.7%

82 THE HOMESTEAD WATER 

COMPANY 2 of 3 VA 686 37 21.7% 21.7%

83 THE HOMESTEAD WATER 

COMPANY 3 of 3 VA 686 37 21.7% 21.7%

84 THREE SPRINGS REGIONAL -

RCPW 1 of 2 VA 4355 1063 24.3% 24.3%

85 THREE SPRINGS REGIONAL -

RCPW 2 of 2 VA 4355 1063 24.3% 24.3%

86 TIM`S RIVERSHORE 

RESTAURANT VA 585 12975 5.2% 6.5%

87 TIMBERVILLE, TOWN OF 1 of 3 VA 700 277 33.9% 33.9%

88 TIMBERVILLE, TOWN OF 2 of 3 VA 700 277 33.9% 33.9%

89 TIMBERVILLE, TOWN OF 3 of 3 VA 700 277 33.9% 33.9%

90

TOMS BROOKMAURERTOWN SANITARY 

DISTRICT

1 of 2 VA 921 597 23.6% 23.6%

91

TOMS BROOKMAURERTOWN SANITARY 

DISTRICT

2 of 2 VA 921 597 23.6% 23.6%

92 TOWN OF BERRYVILLE VA 4185 2619 19.5% 19.5%

93 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 1 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

94 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 2 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

95 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 3 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

96 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 4 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

97 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 5 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

98 TOWN OF NEW MARKET 6 of 6 VA 333 277 33.9% 33.9%

99 TOWN OF SHENANDOAH 1 of 3 VA 778 1266 21.1% 21.1%

100 TOWN OF SHENANDOAH 2 of 3 VA 778 1266 21.1% 21.1%

101 TOWN OF SHENANDOAH 3 of 3 VA 778 1266 21.1% 21.1%

102 VERONA SANITARY 

DISTRICT - ACSA 1 of 2 VA 1788 318 10.7% 10.8%

103 VERONA SANITARY 

DISTRICT - ACSA 2 of 2 VA 1788 318 10.7% 10.8%

104 WAYNESBORO, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 7002 199 25.0% 25.0%

105 WAYNESBORO, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 7002 199 25.0% 25.0%

106 WAYNESBORO, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 7002 199 25.0% 25.0%

107 WINCHESTER, CITY OF VA 28248 845 24.8% 24.8%

108 WOODSTOCK, TOWN OF VA 5070 577 24.3% 24.3%

a This percentage includes water from George Washington National Forest.

George Washington National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from 

George Washington National Forest (3 of 3 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

68

Holly Springs National Forest in Mississippi

Holly Springs National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Holly Springs National Forest
A P P E N D I X

69

Holly Springs National Forest in Mississippi

Public water system intakes receiving water from Holly Springs National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Holly Springs 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 772371 0.1% 4.9%

2 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772371 0.1% 4.9%

3 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772371 0.1% 4.9%

4 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772156 0.1% 4.9%

5 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772371 0.1% 4.9%

6 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768589 0.1% 4.9%

7 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772261 0.1% 4.9%

8 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772371 0.1% 4.9%

9 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772261 0.1% 4.9%

10 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772261 0.1% 4.9%

11 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772371 0.1% 4.9%

12 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772371 0.1% 4.9%

13 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772371 0.1% 4.9%

14 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772371 0.1% 4.9%

15 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772261 0.1% 4.9%

16 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772261 0.1% 4.9%

17 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772371 0.1% 4.9%

18 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772424 0.1% 4.9%

19 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772371 0.1% 4.9%

20 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772261 0.1% 4.9%

21

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 772371 0.1% 4.9%

22

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 

EB LA 29517 772371 0.1% 4.9%

23

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 772371 0.1% 4.9%

24 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772261 0.1% 4.9%

25 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772261 0.1% 4.9%

26 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772261 0.1% 4.9%

27 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772261 0.1% 4.9%

28 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772371 0.1% 4.9%

29 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772371 0.1% 4.9%

30 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772371 0.1% 4.9%

a This percentage includes water from Holly Springs National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

70

Homochitto National Forest in Mississippi

Homochitto National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Homochitto National Forest
A P P E N D I X

71

Homochitto National Forest in Mississippi

Public water system intakes receiving water from Homochitto National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Homochitto 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

2 DALCOUR WATERWORKS 

DIST LA 2666 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

3 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

4 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 < 0.05% 4.9%

5 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

6 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 < 0.05% 4.9%

7 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

8 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

9 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

10 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

11 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

12 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

13 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

14 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

15 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

16 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

17 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

18 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

19 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766896 < 0.05% 4.9%

20 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

21

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

22

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

1 EB LA 29517 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

23

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

2 WB LA 31485 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

24 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

25 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

26 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

27 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

28 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

29 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

30 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

a This percentage includes water from Homochitto National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

72

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

Jefferson National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 10% annual water supply from Jefferson National Forest
A P P E N D I X

73

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (1 of 9 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBERTVILLE UTILITIES BOARD AL 30186 33758 1.0% 13.8%

2 ARAB WATER WORKS BOARD AL 17576 34017 1.0% 13.7%

3 BRIDGEPORT UTILITIES BOARD AL 6000 31495 1.1% 14.7%

4 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44337 0.8% 10.6%

5 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM AL 10731 44235 0.8% 10.6%

6 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL 

UTILITIES BOARD OF) AL 77100 37784 0.9% 12.4%

7 DEKALB-JACKSON WATER 

SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 40 31714 1.1% 14.6%

8 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43340 0.8% 10.8%

9 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43340 0.8% 10.8%

10 FORT PAYNE WATER WORKS 

BOARD AL 7248 32805 1.1% 14.2%

11 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43340 0.8% 10.8%

12 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43340 0.8% 10.8%

13 GUNTERSVILLE WATER 

WORKS & SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 6375 34017 1.0% 13.7%

14 GUNTERSVILLE WATER 

WORKS & SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 6375 34017 1.0% 13.7%

15 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 31310 36904 0.9% 12.6%

16 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 31310 35738 1.0% 13.0%

17

LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 14625 37977 0.9% 12.3%

18 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6185 34017 1.0% 13.7%

19 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 6185 34017 1.0% 13.7%

20

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 1 of 3 AL 9375 33758 1.0% 13.8%

21

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 2 of 3 AL 9375 32805 1.1% 14.2%

22

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 3 of 3 AL 9375 32805 1.1% 14.2%

23 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 1 of 2 AL 10950 32805 1.1% 14.2%

24 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 2 of 2 AL 10950 32805 1.1% 14.2%

25

SECTION-DUTTON WATER 

SYSTEM AL 32682 32805 1.1% 14.2%

26

SHEFFIELD UTILITIES 

DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44235 0.8% 10.6%

27

US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 1 of 2 AL 14250 35738 1.0% 13.0%

28

US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 2 of 2 AL 14250 35738 1.0% 13.0%

29

WEST MORGAN-EAST 

LAWRENCE WATER AUTHORIT AL 26130 38111 0.9% 12.3%

30

WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2400 43340 0.8% 10.8%

31 ALBANY WATER WORKS KY 7351 9744 < 0.05% 8.7%

32 ASHLAND WATER WORKS KY 44402 89807 0.6% 5.4%

33

BARKLEY LAKE WATER 

DISTRICT KY 16038 29482 < 0.05% 3.4%

34 BENHAM WATER PLANT KY 1055 160 1.0% 1.0%

35 BLACK MTN UTILITY/WALLINS KY 1485 682 0.2% 0.2%

36 BURKESVILLE WATER WORKS KY 3219 10075 < 0.05% 8.4%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

74

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

37 BURNSIDE WATER COMPANY KY 2284 8120 < 0.05% 10.5%

38

CRITTENDEN-LIVINGSTON CO 

WATER DISTRICT KY 9079 30309 < 0.05% 3.6%

39

CUMBERLAND MUNICIPAL 

WATER WORKS KY 3478 92 1.8% 1.8%

40

EDDYVILLE WATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 KY 1839 29832 < 0.05% 3.6%

41

EDDYVILLE WATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 KY 1839 29832 < 0.05% 3.6%

42

HARDIN CO. WATER DIST 

#1/FT. KNOX 1 of 2 KY 8480 137706 0.4% 4.2%

43

HARDIN CO. WATER DIST 

#1/FT. KNOX 2 of 2 KY 8480 137706 0.4% 4.2%

44

HARDIN COUNTY WATER 

DISTRICT #1 KY 9900 137706 0.4% 4.2%

45

HARLAN MUNICIPAL WATER 

WORKS KY 6534 602 0.3% 0.3%

46

HENDERSON MUNICIPAL 

WATER & SEWER KY 31696 158419 0.4% 3.8%

47

JAMESTOWN MUNICIPAL 

WATER WORKS KY 10799 9591 < 0.05% 8.8%

48

KENTUCKY STATE 

PENITENTIARY KY 1000 29832 < 0.05% 3.6%

49

KNOX COUNTY UTILITY 

COMMISSION KY 7948 1279 0.1% 0.1%

50

KUTTAWA WATER 

DEPARTMENT KY 853 29922 < 0.05% 3.6%

51 LOUISA WATER DEPARTMENT KY 7511 3065 1.4% 1.4%

52 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 1 of 2 KY 365306 132027 0.4% 4.4%

53 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 2 of 2 KY 365306 132027 0.4% 4.4%

54 LYNCH WATER WORKS KY 1188 160 1.0% 1.0%

55

MAYSVILLE UTILITY 

COMMISSION KY 15548 101543 0.5% 4.9%

56

MONTICELLO WATER & 

SEWER COMMISSION KY 23166 8720 < 0.05% 9.7%

57

MORGANFIELD WATER 

WORKS KY 5495 158638 0.3% 3.8%

58

MOUNTAIN WATER DIST #1 

MARROW BONE KY 48518 953 4.4% 4.5%

59

NORTHERN KENTUCKY WATER 

SERVICE KY 67221 102928 0.5% 4.8%

60 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297413 0.3% 4.2%

61 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 58004 0.6% 8.3%

62 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 58004 0.6% 8.3%

63 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 58004 0.6% 8.3%

64 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 58004 0.6% 8.3%

65

PIKEVILLE WATER 

DEPARTMENT KY 10692 1740 2.4% 2.4%

66

PRESTONSBURG CITY 

UTILITIES KY 21512 2284 1.8% 1.9%

67

PRINCETON WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION KY 10288 29832 < 0.05% 3.6%

68 RUSSELL WATER COMPANY KY 7425 89992 0.6% 5.4%

69 SOMERSET WATER SERVICE KY 29700 8657 < 0.05% 9.8%

70

SOUTHERN WATER & SEWER 

DISTRICT KY 22480 1844 2.3% 2.3%

71 STURGIS WATER WORKS KY 3677 207542 0.3% 3.1%

72 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297779 0.3% 4.2%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (2 of 9 pages)
A P P E N D I X

75

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

73

WILLIAMSBURG WATER 

DEPARTMENT KY 5474 2640 0.1% 0.3%

74

BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 0.1% 4.9%

75 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 766843 0.1% 4.9%

76 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 0.1% 4.9%

77 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 0.1% 4.9%

78 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 0.1% 4.9%

79 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 0.1% 4.9%

80 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 0.1% 4.9%

81 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 0.1% 4.9%

82 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 0.1% 4.9%

83

MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 0.1% 4.9%

84 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.1% 4.9%

85 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.1% 4.9%

86

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.1% 4.9%

87

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.1% 4.9%

88 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 0.1% 4.9%

89 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 0.1% 4.9%

90 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 0.1% 4.9%

91 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766896 0.1% 4.9%

92 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766843 0.1% 4.9%

93 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 0.1% 4.9%

94

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 0.1% 4.9%

95

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 

EB LA 29517 766843 0.1% 4.9%

96

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 766843 0.1% 4.9%

97 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 0.1% 4.9%

98 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 0.1% 4.9%

99 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 0.1% 4.9%

100 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 0.1% 4.9%

101 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.1% 4.9%

102 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.1% 4.9%

103 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 0.1% 4.9%

104

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 1 of 2 MS 533 46506 0.7% 10.1%

105

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 2 of 2 MS 533 46128 0.7% 10.2%

106 CLEVELAND COUNTY WATER NC 19149 342 0.7% 1.0%

107

ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY 

DIST 1 of 2 NC 10918 8404 0.2% 0.2%

108

ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY 

DIST 2 of 2 NC 10918 8422 0.2% 0.2%

109 WELDON WATER SYSTEM NC 808 8422 0.2% 0.2%

110 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 1 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

111 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 2 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

112 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 3 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

113 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 4 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

114 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 5 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

115 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 6 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

116 WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 7 of 7 NC 98 342 0.7% 1.0%

117

ANDERSON COUNTY UTILITY 

BOARD TN 10446 3844 3.7% 3.7%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (3 of 9 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

76

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

118

ANDERSON COUNTY WATER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 2 TN 12260 3844 3.7% 3.7%

119

ANDERSON COUNTY WATER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 2 TN 12260 3664 3.9% 3.9%

120

ARTHUR-SHAWANEE UTILITY 

DISTRI 1 of 2 TN 4666 967 4.0% 4.0%

121

ARTHUR-SHAWANEE UTILITY 

DISTRI 2 of 2 TN 4666 967 4.0% 4.0%

122

BLUFF CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 2467 895 17.2% 32.2%

123 BRISTOL DEPT. UTILITIES TN 29362 841 18.3% 33.1%

124

BRISTOL-BLUFF CITY UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 5254 895 17.2% 32.2%

125 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54848 0.6% 8.6%

126 CARTHAGE WATER SYSTEM TN 2718 18739 < 0.05% 4.5%

127 CARYVILLE-JACKSBORO U. D. TN 2621 3561 4.0% 4.0%

128 CIRCLE VALLEY TRAILER PARK TN 50 23663 1.5% 13.9%

129 CLAIBORNE UTILITIES DISTRICT TN 14109 1892 5.4% 5.5%

130

CLARKSVILLE WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 177348 24901 < 0.05% 3.4%

131 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48350 0.7% 9.7%

132 CLINTON UTILITIES BOARD TN 17083 3844 3.7% 3.7%

133

CUNNINGHAM EAST MONT 

WAT TR PL TN 25 24799 < 0.05% 3.4%

134 DAYTON WATER DEPT TN 21235 28274 1.2% 16.4%

135 DECATUR WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 2810 23663 1.5% 13.9%

136 DECATUR WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 2810 23663 1.5% 13.9%

137 DOVER WATER DEPT TN 3996 27996 < 0.05% 3.0%

138

E.I. DUPONT, NEW 

JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54936 0.6% 8.5%

139 E.I. DUPONT, OLD HICKORY TN 1250 20132 < 0.05% 4.2%

140 EASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 48211 28660 1.2% 16.2%

141 ERIN WATER DEPARTMENT TN 7001 27334 < 0.05% 3.1%

142

ETTP - COR - CITY OF OAK 

RIDGE TN 843 6010 2.4% 2.4%

143 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56389 0.6% 8.3%

144 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 1 of 2 TN 9356 3205 6.4% 16.7%

145 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 2 of 2 TN 9356 3205 6.4% 16.7%

146

FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN 

COUNTY TN 6669 46506 0.7% 10.1%

147

FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX 

COUNT 1 of 2 TN 40625 11685 1.7% 14.4%

148

FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX 

COUNT 2 of 2 TN 40625 11685 1.7% 14.4%

149 GAINESBORO WATER SYSTEM TN 1589 13385 < 0.05% 6.3%

150

GALLATIN WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 41083 19841 < 0.05% 4.3%

151 GRASSHOPPER CREEK P.U.A. TN 100 28274 1.2% 16.4%

152 HALLSDALE POWELL U D 1 of 3 TN 23486 4229 3.3% 3.4%

153 HALLSDALE POWELL U D 2 of 3 TN 23486 4229 3.3% 3.4%

154 HALLSDALE POWELL U D 3 of 3 TN 23486 3561 4.0% 4.0%

155 HARPETH VALLEY U D TN 56440 22538 < 0.05% 3.8%

156 HARTSVILLE WATER DEPT TN 8667 19146 < 0.05% 4.4%

157 HENDERSONVILLE U D TN 49144 20132 < 0.05% 4.2%

158

JACOBS CREEK JOB CORPS 

CENTER - USFS TN 300 783 19.7% 34.9%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (4 of 9 pages)
A P P E N D I X

77

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

159

JEFFERSON CITY WATER & 

SEWER C 1 of 2 TN 4197 3817 5.3% 14.0%

160

JEFFERSON CITY WATER & 

SEWER C 2 of 2 TN 4197 3817 5.3% 14.0%

161 KINGSPORT WATER DEPT TN 91499 2368 6.5% 20.5%

162 KINGSTON WATER SYSTEM TN 4547 16745 1.2% 18.7%

163

KNOXVILLE UTILITIES BOARDKUB TN 236338 11497 1.8% 14.6%

164 LA FOLLETTE UTILITIES BOARD TN 23981 3561 4.0% 4.0%

165 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 702 3380 6.0% 15.9%

166 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 702 3380 6.0% 15.9%

167 LEBANON WATER SYSTEM TN 33323 19429 < 0.05% 4.4%

168 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 1 of 2 TN 11445 16407 1.2% 19.1%

169 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 2 of 2 TN 11445 16407 1.2% 19.1%

170

LINCOLN MEMORIAL 

UNIVERSITY TN 1950 967 4.0% 4.0%

171 LIVINGSTON WATER DEPT TN 4190 12649 < 0.05% 6.7%

172 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 1 of 2 TN 6141 16407 1.2% 19.1%

173 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 2 of 2 TN 6141 16407 1.2% 19.1%

174

LUTTRELL-BLAINE-CORRYTON 

U.D. TN 1760 3855 5.3% 13.9%

175 MADISON SUBURBAN UD TN 68205 22202 < 0.05% 3.8%

176

MORRISTOWN WATER 

SYSTEM TN 15509 3649 5.6% 14.7%

177

MOUNTAIN CITY WATER 

DEPT. 1 of 2 TN 2422 51 1.1% 40.2%

178

MOUNTAIN CITY WATER 

DEPT. 2 of 2 TN 2422 51 1.1% 40.2%

179 NASHVILLE WATER DEPT #1 1 of 2 TN 299798 22297 < 0.05% 3.8%

180 NASHVILLE WATER DEPT #1 2 of 2 TN 299798 22202 < 0.05% 3.8%

181

NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER 

DEPT TN 2602 49180 0.7% 9.5%

182 NORRIS WATER COMMISSION TN 1920 3664 3.9% 3.9%

183

NORTH STEWART UTILITY 

DISTRICT 1 of 4 TN 1322 27996 < 0.05% 3.0%

184

NORTH STEWART UTILITY 

DISTRICT 2 of 4 TN 1322 27996 < 0.05% 3.0%

185

NORTH STEWART UTILITY 

DISTRICT 3 of 4 TN 1322 27996 < 0.05% 3.0%

186

NORTH STEWART UTILITY 

DISTRICT 4 of 4 TN 1322 27996 < 0.05% 3.0%

187 NORTHEAST KNOX U D TN 21048 4173 4.9% 12.8%

188

NORTHWEST CLAY COUNTY 

UTILITY TN 3733 12539 < 0.05% 6.8%

189

OAK RIDGE DEPT OF PUBLIC 

WORKS TN 31495 4229 3.3% 3.4%

190

OLD HICKORY UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 4063 20132 < 0.05% 4.2%

191

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49180 0.7% 9.5%

192

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49180 0.7% 9.5%

193 PERSIA UTILITY DISTRICT TN 4414 3444 5.9% 15.6%

194

PLEASANT VIEW UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 13788 24542 < 0.05% 3.5%

195 RIVER ROAD UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2909 22612 < 0.05% 3.8%

196 RIVERSIDE CATFISH HOUSE TN 30 30089 1.1% 15.4%

197 ROCKWOOD WATER SYSTEM TN 9273 23139 1.5% 14.2%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (5 of 9 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

78

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

198

SHADY GROVE HARBOR 

MARINA TN 30 28497 1.2% 16.3%

199 SNEEDVILLE U D 1 of 2 TN 1022 1568 6.6% 6.7%

200 SNEEDVILLE U D 2 of 2 TN 1022 1568 6.6% 6.7%

201

SOUTH PITTSBURG WATER 

SYSTEM TN 6522 31495 1.1% 14.7%

202 SPRING CITY WATER SYSTEM TN 2554 23411 1.5% 14.0%

203

SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY 

DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 1179 3380 6.0% 15.9%

204

SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY 

DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 1179 3380 6.0% 15.9%

205

TENN-AMERICAN WATER 

COMPANY TN 185910 29964 1.2% 15.5%

206

WATER AUTH. OF DICKSON 

COUNTY TN 17100 24542 < 0.05% 3.5%

207 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 3723 23411 1.5% 14.0%

208 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 3723 23411 1.5% 14.0%

209 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 3723 23411 1.5% 14.0%

210

WAVERLY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54848 0.6% 8.6%

211 WEST KNOX UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 30344 4229 3.3% 3.4%

212 WEST KNOX UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 30344 4229 3.3% 3.4%

213

WEST WILSON UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 56990 20132 < 0.05% 4.2%

214

WHITE HOUSE UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 87329 20132 < 0.05% 4.2%

215 ALTAVISTA, TOWN OF 1 of 4 VA 770 1804 0.6% 0.6%

216 ALTAVISTA, TOWN OF 2 of 4 VA 770 1804 0.6% 0.6%

217 ALTAVISTA, TOWN OF 3 of 4 VA 770 2227 0.9% 0.9%

218 ALTAVISTA, TOWN OF 4 of 4 VA 770 400 2.2% 2.2%

219 APPALACHIA, TOWN OF VA 2968 85 6.9% 6.9%

220 BEDFORD, CITY OF 1 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

221 BEDFORD, CITY OF 2 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

222 BEDFORD, CITY OF 3 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

223 BEDFORD, CITY OF 4 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

224 BEDFORD, CITY OF 5 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

225 BEDFORD, CITY OF 6 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

226 BEDFORD, CITY OF 7 of 7 VA 992 60 4.2% 4.2%

227 BIG STONE GAP, TOWN OF VA 4686 222 10.7% 10.7%

228

BLAND COMMUNITY WATER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 2 VA 245 57 14.4% 14.4%

229

BLAND COMMUNITY WATER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 2 VA 245 57 14.4% 14.4%

230

BLAND CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER VA 750 226 34.5% 34.5%

231

BOILING SPRING ELEMENTARY 

SCHOOL VA 200 156 32.7% 55.2%

232

BRISTOL VIRGINIA UTILITY 

BOARD VA 20000 705 21.9% 32.9%

233 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 1 of 4 VA 308 2093 15.9% 42.5%

234 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 2 of 4 VA 308 2093 15.9% 42.5%

235 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 3 of 4 VA 308 2093 15.9% 42.5%

236 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 4 of 4 VA 308 60 19.2% 19.2%

237

CAMPBELL COUNTY CENTRAL 

SYSTEM VA 10000 374 2.3% 2.3%

238 CATAWBA HOSPITAL 1 of 2 VA 210 48 20.9% 21.0%

239 CATAWBA HOSPITAL 2 of 2 VA 210 48 20.9% 21.0%

240 CITY OF SALEM WTP VA 25500 349 0.9% 0.9%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (6 of 9 pages)
A P P E N D I X

79

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

241 CLARKSVILLE, TOWN OF VA 1400 7494 0.3% 0.3%

242 CLIFTON FORGE, TOWN OF VA 4679 931 5.5% 42.6%

243 CLOVERDALE VA 224 67 1.4% 1.4%

244 COEBURN, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 1543 134 15.2% 15.7%

245 COEBURN, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 1543 134 15.2% 15.7%

246 DALE COURT VA 30 67 1.4% 1.4%

247 DUFFIELD_SCOTT CO PSA 1 of 2 VA 1523 53 27.1% 27.1%

248 DUFFIELD_SCOTT CO PSA 2 of 2 VA 1523 53 27.1% 27.1%

249 DUNGANNON, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 300 1030 6.9% 7.0%

250 DUNGANNON, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 300 1030 6.9% 7.0%

251

EAGLE EYRIE BAPTIST 

CONFERENCE CENTER VA 1000 3365 11.7% 37.4%

252 ECV/SCOTT CO PSA VA 219 624 8.0% 8.0%

253 FRIES, TOWN OF VA 484 1857 3.4% 3.5%

254

HENRICO COUNTY WATER

SYSTEM VA 144500 6717 5.8% 19.9%

255 HOUNDSHELL CAMPGROUND VA 25 57 64.5% 64.5%

256 HUTTON BRANCH 1 of 2 VA 208 107 32.6% 33.2%

257 HUTTON BRANCH 2 of 2 VA 208 107 32.6% 33.2%

258 IVANHOE_MAX MEADOWS 1 of 3 VA 1266 337 18.5% 18.7%

259 IVANHOE_MAX MEADOWS 2 of 3 VA 1266 337 18.5% 18.7%

260 IVANHOE_MAX MEADOWS 3 of 3 VA 1266 337 18.5% 18.7%

261

JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL 

CTR VA 6902 6508 6.0% 20.5%

262 JAMES RIVER ESTATES 1 of 2 VA 44 6624 5.9% 20.2%

263 JAMES RIVER ESTATES 2 of 2 VA 44 6624 5.9% 20.2%

264 JONESVILLE, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 932 543 7.1% 7.1%

265 JONESVILLE, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 932 543 7.1% 7.1%

266 LYNCHBURG, CITY OF 1 of 2 VA 25333 3526 11.2% 35.7%

267 LYNCHBURG, CITY OF 2 of 2 VA 25333 3365 11.7% 37.4%

268 MARION, TOWN OF 1 of 5 VA 1700 107 32.6% 33.2%

269 MARION, TOWN OF 2 of 5 VA 1700 107 32.6% 33.2%

270 MARION, TOWN OF 3 of 5 VA 1700 107 32.6% 33.2%

271 MARION, TOWN OF 4 of 5 VA 1700 107 32.6% 33.2%

272 MARION, TOWN OF 5 of 5 VA 1700 107 32.6% 33.2%

273 NARROWS, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 630 5193 9.9% 9.9%

274 NARROWS, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 630 329 19.6% 20.0%

275 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 33833 9602 4.1% 13.9%

276 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 33833 9602 4.1% 13.9%

277 NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 33833 9602 4.1% 13.9%

278 NORFOLK, CITY OF 1 of 3 VA 11153 8348 0.2% 0.2%

279 NORFOLK, CITY OF 2 of 3 VA 11153 8348 0.2% 0.2%

280 NORFOLK, CITY OF 3 of 3 VA 11153 8348 0.2% 0.2%

281 NORTON, CITY OF 1 of 2 VA 792 85 6.9% 6.9%

282 NORTON, CITY OF 2 of 2 VA 792 85 6.9% 6.9%

283 PENNINGTON GAP, TOWN OF VA 1781 284 8.9% 8.9%

284 POUND, TOWN OF VA 1104 55 27.0% 27.1%

285 PULASKI COUNTY PSA VA 9452 3298 6.3% 6.3%

286 PULASKI, TOWN OF VA 9473 36 55.1% 55.3%

287

RADFORD ARMY 

AMMUNITION PLANT - 419 1 of 2 VA 690 4012 5.9% 6.0%

288

RADFORD ARMY 

AMMUNITION PLANT - 419 2 of 2 VA 690 4012 5.9% 6.0%

289 RADFORD, CITY OF VA 15859 3935 6.0% 6.1%

290

RAM/WAYSIDE COMMUNITY

WATER SYSTEM VA 93 5193 9.9% 9.9%

291 RICH CREEK, TOWN OF VA 475 60 2.2% 2.2%

292 RICHMOND, CITY OF VA 197000 6762 5.8% 19.8%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (7 of 9 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

80

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

293

ROANOKE RIVER SERVICE 

AUTHORITY VA 215 7997 0.2% 0.2%

294 RURAL RETREAT, TOWN OF 1 of 2 VA 1250 176 30.3% 30.6%

295 RURAL RETREAT, TOWN OF 2 of 2 VA 1250 176 30.3% 30.6%

296

RYE VALLEY WATER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 3 VA 425 57 64.5% 64.5%

297

RYE VALLEY WATER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 3 VA 425 57 64.5% 64.5%

298

RYE VALLEY WATER 

AUTHORITY 3 of 3 VA 425 57 64.5% 64.5%

299

SMITH MT. LAKE CENTRAL 

WATER SYSTEM VA 1420 1025 0.5% 0.5%

300

THOMAS BRIDGE WATER 

CORP 1 of 2 VA 1750 110 48.6% 48.6%

301

THOMAS BRIDGE WATER 

CORP 2 of 2 VA 1750 110 48.6% 48.6%

302 WALKER CREEK 1 of 2 VA 162 169 21.4% 21.8%

303 WALKER CREEK 2 of 2 VA 162 169 21.4% 21.8%

304

WASHINGTON COUNTY 

SERVICE AUTHORITY 1 of 2 VA 4757 254 14.2% 14.5%

305

WASHINGTON COUNTY 

SERVICE AUTHORITY 2 of 2 VA 4757 77 62.6% 68.3%

306

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 21 VA 5345 644 0.8% 0.8%

307

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

308

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 3 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

309

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 4 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

310

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 5 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

311

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 6 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

312

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 7 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

313

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 8 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

314

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 9 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

315

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 10 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

316

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 11 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

317

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 12 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

318

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 13 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

319

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 14 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

320

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 15 of 21 VA 5345 598 0.9% 0.9%

321

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 16 of 21 VA 5345 349 0.9% 0.9%

322

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 17 of 21 VA 5345 349 0.9% 0.9%

323

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 18 of 21 VA 5345 129 1.7% 1.7%

(Continued)

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (8 of 9 pages)
A P P E N D I X

81

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Jefferson NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

324

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 19 of 21 VA 5345 129 1.7% 1.7%

325

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 20 of 21 VA 5345 129 1.7% 1.7%

326

WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER 

AUTHORITY 21 of 21 VA 5345 129 1.7% 1.7%

327 WYTHEVILLE, TOWN OF VA 3902 221 24.0% 24.3%

a This percentage includes water from Jefferson National Forest.

Jefferson National Forest in Virginia

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Jefferson National Forest (9 of 9 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

82

Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana

Kisatchie National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Kisatchie National Forest
A P P E N D I X

83

Table A.14—Kisatchie National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Kisatchie NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 FRANKLIN WATER SUPPLY 

CITY OF LA 8500 3135 5.9% 5.9%

2 MONROE WATER SYSTEM LA 26286 21809 0.2% 7.5%

3 MORGAN CITY WATER 

SYSTEM LA 6352 86706 1.1% 3.9%

4

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

1 of 7 LA 2786 67 10.5% 10.5%

5

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

2 of 7 LA 2786 67 10.5% 10.5%

6

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

3 of 7 LA 2786 67 10.5% 10.5%

7

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

4 of 7 LA 2786 26 16.6% 16.7%

8

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

5 of 7 LA 2786 552 18.7% 18.7%

9

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

6 of 7 LA 2786 552 18.7% 18.7%

10

RAPIDES PARISH 

WATERWORKS DISTRICT 

NO 3

7 of 7 LA 2786 93 52.5% 52.6%

11 SANDY POINT 480 WATER 

SYSTEM LA 458 1096 0.5% 0.5%

12 ST MARY PARISH WW 

DIST NO 5 LA 7500 83486 1.2% 4.1%

13 VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION LA 665 552 18.7% 18.7%

14

WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION #4 OF ST 

MARY

LA 4674 83537 1.2% 4.1%

a This percentage includes water from Kisatchie National Forest.

Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana

Public water system intakes receiving water from Kisatchie National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

84

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee

Land Between the Lakes and public water system intakes receiving greater than

or equal to 0.1% annual water supply from Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area
A P P E N D I X

85

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee

Public water system intakes receiving water from Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Land Between 

the Lakes only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BARKLEY LAKE WATER DISTRICT KY 16038 29493 0.5% 3.4%

2 CRITTENDEN-LIVINGSTON CO 

WATER DISTRICT KY 9079 30319 0.8% 3.6%

3 EDDYVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 KY 1839 29842 0.7% 3.6%

4 EDDYVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 KY 1839 29842 0.7% 3.6%

5 KENTUCKY STATE PENITENTIARY KY 1000 29842 0.7% 3.6%

6 KUTTAWA WATER DEPARTMENT KY 853 29933 0.8% 3.6%

7 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297471 0.1% 4.2%

8 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 57983 0.2% 8.3%

9 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 57983 0.2% 8.3%

10 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 57983 0.2% 8.3%

11 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 57983 0.2% 8.3%

12 PRINCETON WATER & SEWER 

COMMISSION KY 10288 29842 0.7% 3.6%

13 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297837 0.1% 4.2%

14 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

15 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

16 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

17 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772162 < 0.05% 4.9%

18 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

19 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768596 < 0.05% 4.9%

20 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

21 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

22 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

23 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

24 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

25 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

27 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

28 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

29 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

30 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

31 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772430 < 0.05% 4.9%

32 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

33 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

34 ST BERNARD PAR WATERWORK LA 33000 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

35 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 EB LA 29517 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

36 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 WB LA 31485 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

37 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

38 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

39 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

40 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772267 < 0.05% 4.9%

41 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

42 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

43 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772377 < 0.05% 4.9%

44 CLEARWATER CMPG & TROUT FARM TN 25 33 0.1% 0.1%

45 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 1 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

46 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 2 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

47 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 3 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

48 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 4 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

49 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 5 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

50 DOALNARA RESTORATION SOCI USA 6 of 6 TN 22 33 0.1% 0.1%

51 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56368 < 0.05% 8.3%

a This percentage includes water from Land Between the Lakes.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

86

Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland in Texas

Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland and public water system intakes receiving

more than 0.1% annual water supply from Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland 
A P P E N D I X

87

Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland 

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Lyndon B. Johnson 

Grassland only

Percent 

from all 

NFS landsa

millions m3/year

1 ARGYLE WSC TX 1217 410 2.3% 2.3%

2 BARTONVILLE WSC TX 795 410 2.3% 2.3%

3 CITY OF AZLE TX 14115 1054 0.6% 0.6%

4 CITY OF BEDFORD TX 49950 1946 0.3% 0.3%

5 CITY OF BOYD 1 of 2 TX 625 903 0.8% 0.8%

6 CITY OF BOYD 2 of 2 TX 625 903 0.8% 0.8%

7 CITY OF CARROLLTON TX 122100 1894 0.5% 0.5%

8 CITY OF FORT WORTH 1 of 3 TX 121263 1122 0.6% 0.6%

9 CITY OF FORT WORTH 2 of 3 TX 121263 1122 0.6% 0.6%

10 CITY OF FORT WORTH 3 of 3 TX 121263 1054 0.6% 0.6%

11 CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE 1 of 3 TX 17103 4446 0.4% 0.4%

12 CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE 2 of 3 TX 17103 4446 0.4% 0.4%

13 CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE 3 of 3 TX 17103 4446 0.4% 0.4%

14 CITY OF GRAPEVINE TX 50514 467 2.0% 2.0%

15 CITY OF HOUSTON TX 16528 15306 0.1% 0.4%

16 CITY OF HURST 1 of 5 TX 7467 1946 0.3% 0.3%

17 CITY OF HURST 2 of 5 TX 7467 1946 0.3% 0.3%

18 CITY OF HURST 3 of 5 TX 7467 1946 0.3% 0.3%

19 CITY OF HURST 4 of 5 TX 7467 1946 0.3% 0.3%

20 CITY OF HURST 5 of 5 TX 7467 1946 0.3% 0.3%

21 CITY OF JUSTIN 1 of 2 TX 1715 388 2.4% 2.4%

22 CITY OF JUSTIN 2 of 2 TX 1715 388 2.4% 2.4%

23 CITY OF LAKE WORTH 1 of 2 TX 2375 1071 0.6% 0.6%

24 CITY OF LAKE WORTH 2 of 2 TX 2375 1071 0.6% 0.6%

25 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 1 of 5 TX 13280 1946 0.3% 0.3%

26 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 2 of 5 TX 13280 1946 0.3% 0.3%

27 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 3 of 5 TX 13280 1946 0.3% 0.3%

28 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 4 of 5 TX 13280 1946 0.3% 0.3%

29 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 5 of 5 TX 13280 1946 0.3% 0.3%

30 CITY OF RHOME 1 of 3 TX 355 937 0.7% 0.7%

31 CITY OF RHOME 2 of 3 TX 355 937 0.7% 0.7%

33 CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS TX 2321 1735 0.4% 0.4%

34 CITY OF RIVER OAKS TX 7427 1122 0.6% 0.6%

35 CITY OF SPRINGTOWN TX 663 967 0.7% 0.7%

36 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 1 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

37 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 2 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

38 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 3 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

39 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 4 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

40 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 5 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

41 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 6 of 9 TX 1789 1153 0.6% 0.6%

42 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 7 of 9 TX 1789 1122 0.6% 0.6%

43 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 8 of 9 TX 1789 1122 0.6% 0.6%

44 CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT 9 of 9 TX 1789 1122 0.6% 0.6%

45 CITY OF WILMER 1 of 2 TX 1700 4910 0.3% 0.3%

46 CITY OF WILMER 2 of 2 TX 1700 4910 0.3% 0.3%

47 COMMUNITY WSC TX 3702 967 0.7% 0.7%

48 D BAR B MOBILE HOME RANCH TX 219 4910 0.3% 0.3%

49 DALLAS WATER UTILITY TX 313250 2013 0.5% 0.5%

50 SOUTH LAKE PARK SERVICE 1 of 2 TX 56 441 2.1% 2.1%

51 SOUTH LAKE PARK SERVICE 2 of 2 TX 56 441 2.1% 2.1%

52 TBCD WEST TREATMENT PLANT TX 1827 15760 0.1% 0.4%

53 TOWN OF NORTHLAKE 1 of 2 TX 775 388 2.4% 2.4%

54 TOWN OF NORTHLAKE 2 of 2 TX 775 388 2.4% 2.4%

55 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 1 of 4 TX 1953 441 2.1% 2.1%

56 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 2 of 4 TX 1953 441 2.1% 2.1%

57 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 3 of 4 TX 1953 441 2.1% 2.1%

58 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 4 of 4 TX 1953 441 2.1% 2.1%

59 WATERWOOD MUD 1 1 of 2 TX 524 13515 0.1% 0.3%

60 WATERWOOD MUD 1 2 of 2 TX 524 13515 0.1% 0.3%

a This percentage includes water from Lyndon B. Johnson Grassland.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

88

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

Nantahala National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 5% annual water supply from Nantahala National Forest
A P P E N D I X

89

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

Public water system intakes receiving water from Nantahala National Forest (1 of 5 pages) 

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Nantahala NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBERTVILLE UTILITIES 

BOARD AL 30186 33758 4.3% 13.8%

2 ARAB WATER WORKS BOARD AL 17576 34017 4.3% 13.7%

3 BRIDGEPORT UTILITIES 

BOARD AL 6000 31495 4.7% 14.7%

4 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44337 3.3% 10.6%

5 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM AL 10731 44235 3.3% 10.6%

6 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL 

UTILITIES BOARD OF) AL 77100 37784 3.9% 12.4%

7 DEKALB-JACKSON WATER 

SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 40 31714 4.6% 14.6%

8 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43340 3.4% 10.8%

9 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43340 3.4% 10.8%

10 FORT PAYNE WATER WORKS 

BOARD AL 7248 32805 4.5% 14.2%

11 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43340 3.4% 10.8%

12 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43340 3.4% 10.8%

13 GUNTERSVILLE WATER 

WORKS & SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 6375 34017 4.3% 13.7%

14

GUNTERSVILLE WATER 

WORKS & SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 6375 34017 4.3% 13.7%

15 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 31310 36904 4.0% 12.6%

16 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 31310 35738 4.1% 13.0%

17

LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 14625 37977 3.9% 12.3%

18 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6185 34017 4.3% 13.7%

19 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 6185 34017 4.3% 13.7%

20

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 1 of 3 AL 9375 33758 4.3% 13.8%

21

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 2 of 3 AL 9375 32805 4.5% 14.2%

22

NORTHEAST ALABAMA 

WATER SYSTEM 3 of 3 AL 9375 32805 4.5% 14.2%

23 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 1 of 2 AL 10950 32805 4.5% 14.2%

24 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 2 of 2 AL 10950 32805 4.5% 14.2%

25

SECTION-DUTTON WATER 

SYSTEM AL 32682 32805 4.5% 14.2%

26

SHEFFIELD UTILITIES 

DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44235 3.3% 10.6%

27

US ARMY AVIATION & 

MISSILE COMMAND 1 of 2 AL 14250 35738 4.1% 13.0%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

90

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Nantahala NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

28

US ARMY AVIATION & 

MISSILE COMMAND 2 of 2 AL 14250 35738 4.1% 13.0%

29

WEST MORGAN-EAST 

LAWRENCE WATER 

AUTHORIT AL 26130 38111 3.9% 12.3%

30

WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2400 43340 3.4% 10.8%

31 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 1 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

32 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 2 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

33 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 3 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

34 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 4 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

35 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 5 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

36 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 6 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

37 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 7 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

38 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 8 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

39 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 9 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

40 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 10 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

41 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 11 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

42 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 12 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

43 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 13 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

44 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 14 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

45 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 15 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

46 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 16 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

47 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 17 of 18 GA 8870 8951 2.0% 12.5%

48 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 18 of 18 GA 8870 8130 2.2% 13.8%

49 COLUMBIA COUNTY GA 31379 8040 2.2% 14.0%

50 HARTWELL GA 7116 3518 5.1% 26.8%

51 LAVONIA GA 4004 3518 5.1% 26.8%

52 LINCOLNTON GA 1657 7334 2.4% 14.4%

53 POOLER 1 of 2 GA 3770 10781 1.7% 10.4%

54 POOLER 2 of 2 GA 3770 10781 1.7% 10.4%

55 RINCON 1 of 2 GA 4940 10781 1.7% 10.4%

56 RINCON 2 of 2 GA 4940 10598 1.7% 10.6%

57 SAVANNAH-I & D 1 of 4 GA 2625 10781 1.7% 10.4%

58 SAVANNAH-I & D 2 of 4 GA 2625 10781 1.7% 10.4%

59 SAVANNAH-I & D 3 of 4 GA 2625 10781 1.7% 10.4%

60 SAVANNAH-I & D 4 of 4 GA 2625 10598 1.7% 10.6%

61

THOMSON-MCDUFFIE CO 

W&S COMM GA 8859 7334 2.4% 14.4%

(Continued)

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Nantahala National Forest (2 of 5 pages) 
A P P E N D I X

91

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Nantahala NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

62 WASHINGTON GA 2052 7334 2.4% 14.4%

63 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297413 0.5% 4.2%

64 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.5% 8.3%

65 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.5% 8.3%

66 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.5% 8.3%

67 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 58004 2.5% 8.3%

68 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297779 0.5% 4.2%

69

BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 0.2% 4.9%

70

DALCOUR WATERWORKS 

DIST LA 2666 766843 0.2% 4.9%

71 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 0.2% 4.9%

72 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 0.2% 4.9%

73 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 0.2% 4.9%

74 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 0.2% 4.9%

75 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 0.2% 4.9%

76 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 0.2% 4.9%

77 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 0.2% 4.9%

78

MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 0.2% 4.9%

79 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

80 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.2% 4.9%

81

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

82

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

83 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 0.2% 4.9%

84 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 0.2% 4.9%

85 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 0.2% 4.9%

86 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766896 0.2% 4.9%

87 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766843 0.2% 4.9%

88 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 0.2% 4.9%

89

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 0.2% 4.9%

90

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

1 EB LA 29517 766843 0.2% 4.9%

91

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

2 WB LA 31485 766843 0.2% 4.9%

92 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 0.2% 4.9%

93 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 0.2% 4.9%

94 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 0.2% 4.9%

95 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 0.2% 4.9%

96 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

97 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.2% 4.9%

(Continued)

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Nantahala National Forest (3 of 5 pages) 
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

92

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Nantahala NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

98 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 0.2% 4.9%

99

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 1 of 2 MS 533 46506 3.2% 10.1%

100

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 2 of 2 MS 533 46128 3.2% 10.2%

101 ANDREWS, TOWN OF 1 of 3 NC 1105 149 45.4% 45.4%

102 ANDREWS, TOWN OF 2 of 3 NC 1105 149 45.4% 45.4%

103 ANDREWS, TOWN OF 3 of 3 NC 1105 149 45.4% 45.4%

104

FONTANA VILLAGE RESORT 

WTP NC 950 3000 27.4% 28.8%

105 FRANKLIN, TOWN OF NC 9575 112 45.1% 45.1%

106 HIGHLANDS, TOWN OF 1 of 2 NC 3255 99 48.2% 48.3%

107 HIGHLANDS, TOWN OF 2 of 2 NC 3255 99 48.2% 48.3%

108

KING MOUNTAIN CLUB 

WATER 1 of 2 NC 75 188 17.4% 38.7%

109

KING MOUNTAIN CLUB 

WATER 2 of 2 NC 75 188 17.4% 38.7%

110 MURPHY, TOWN OF NC 4240 699 22.2% 45.2%

111 ROBBINSVILLE, TOWN OF 1 of 4 NC 775 340 54.0% 54.0%

112 ROBBINSVILLE, TOWN OF 2 of 4 NC 775 340 54.0% 54.0%

113 ROBBINSVILLE, TOWN OF 3 of 4 NC 775 340 54.0% 54.0%

114 ROBBINSVILLE, TOWN OF 4 of 4 NC 775 340 54.0% 54.0%

115

TUCKASEIGEE WATER & 

SEWER AUTH NC 5850 564 32.7% 32.7%

116

WESTERN CAROLINA UNIV 

WTP NC 7700 564 32.7% 32.7%

117

ANDERSON REGIONAL WTR 

SYS SC 25 3518 5.1% 26.8%

118 BJW&SA 1 of 3 SC 16468 10781 1.7% 10.4%

119 BJW&SA 2 of 3 SC 16468 10781 1.7% 10.4%

120 BJW&SA 3 of 3 SC 16468 10598 1.7% 10.6%

121 EDGEFIELD CO W&SA SC 24652 8130 2.2% 13.8%

122 GREENVILLE WATER SYSTEM SC 116723 776 6.1% 14.0%

123 MCCORMICK CPW SC 2678 7334 2.4% 14.4%

124 NORTH AUGUSTA CITY OF SC 26273 8130 2.2% 13.8%

125 SALEM TOWN OF 1 of 3 SC 456 425 11.1% 14.4%

126 SALEM TOWN OF 2 of 3 SC 456 425 11.1% 14.4%

127 SALEM TOWN OF 3 of 3 SC 456 425 11.1% 14.4%

128 129 MOTORCYCLE PIT STOP TN 50 3921 27.7% 31.9%

129 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54848 2.7% 8.6%

130 CIRCLE VALLEY TRAILER PARK TN 50 23663 4.7% 13.9%

131 CLEVELAND UTILITIES TN 38754 3550 10.3% 38.2%

132 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48350 3.0% 9.7%

133 DAYTON WATER DEPT TN 21235 28274 5.2% 16.4%

(Continued)

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Nantahala National Forest (4 of 5 pages) 
A P P E N D I X

93

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Nantahala NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

134 DECATUR WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 2810 23663 4.7% 13.9%

135 DECATUR WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 2810 23663 4.7% 13.9%

136

E.I. DUPONT, NEW 

JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54936 2.7% 8.5%

137 EASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 48211 28660 5.1% 16.2%

138 ETOWAH UTILITIES TN 11895 2127 17.1% 40.0%

139 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56389 2.6% 8.3%

140

FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN 

COUNTY TN 6669 46506 3.2% 10.1%

141 GRASSHOPPER CREEK P.U.A. TN 100 28274 5.2% 16.4%

142

HIWASSEE UTILITY 

COMMISSION TN 98 3550 10.3% 38.2%

143 KINGSTON WATER SYSTEM TN 4547 16745 6.6% 18.7%

144 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 1 of 2 TN 11445 16407 6.7% 19.1%

145 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 2 of 2 TN 11445 16407 6.7% 19.1%

146 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 1 of 2 TN 6141 16407 6.7% 19.1%

147 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 2 of 2 TN 6141 16407 6.7% 19.1%

148

NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER 

DEPT TN 2602 49180 3.0% 9.5%

149 OLIN CORPORATION TN 624 3991 9.1% 34.0%

150

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49180 3.0% 9.5%

151

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49180 3.0% 9.5%

152 RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS TN 650 3550 10.3% 38.2%

153 RIVERSIDE CATFISH HOUSE TN 30 30089 4.9% 15.4%

154 ROCKWOOD WATER SYSTEM TN 9273 23139 4.8% 14.2%

155

SHADY GROVE HARBOR 

MARINA TN 30 28497 5.2% 16.3%

156

SOUTH BLOUNT UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 36601 3921 27.7% 31.9%

157

SOUTH PITTSBURG WATER 

SYSTEM TN 6522 31495 4.7% 14.7%

158 SPRING CITY WATER SYSTEM TN 2554 23411 4.7% 14.0%

159

TELLICO AREA SERVICES 

SYSTEM TN 9475 3921 27.7% 31.9%

160

TENN-AMERICAN WATER 

COMPANY TN 185910 29964 4.9% 15.5%

161 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 3723 23411 4.7% 14.0%

162 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 3723 23411 4.7% 14.0%

163 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 3723 23411 4.7% 14.0%

164

WAVERLY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54848 2.7% 8.6%

a This percentage includes water from Nantahala National Forest.

Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Nantahala National Forest (5 of 5 pages) 
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

94

Ocala National Forest in Florida

Streams and rivers flowing from Ocala National Forest 

No public water system intakes receive water from Ocala National Forest 
No public water system intakes receive water from Ocala National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

96

Oconee National Forest in Georgia

Oconee National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Oconee National Forest
A P P E N D I X

97

Table A.18—Oconee National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Oconee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 DUBLIN 1 of 4 GA 4375 4303 2.4% 2.4%

2 DUBLIN 2 of 4 GA 4375 4303 2.4% 2.4%

3 DUBLIN 3 of 4 GA 4375 4303 2.4% 2.4%

4 DUBLIN 4 of 4 GA 4375 4303 2.4% 2.4%

5 GEORGIA POWER-PLANT 

BRANCH GA 400 2923 3.5% 3.5%

6 GREENSBORO GA 3156 1765 2.1% 2.2%

7 JONES COUNTY 1 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

8 JONES COUNTY 2 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

9 JONES COUNTY 3 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

10 JONES COUNTY 4 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

11 JONES COUNTY 5 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

12 JONES COUNTY 6 of 6 GA 1093 3536 1.2% 1.2%

13 MACON WATER 

AUTHORITY GA 127239 2821 1.5% 1.5%

14 MADISON GA 2608 513 1.2% 1.2%

15 MILLEDGEVILLE 1 of 2 GA 9728 2952 3.5% 3.5%

16 MILLEDGEVILLE 2 of 2 GA 9728 2952 3.5% 3.5%

17 OCONEE CO.-

WATKINSVILLE GA 1923 28 12.5% 12.5%

a This percentage includes water from Oconee National Forest.

Oconee National Forest in Georgia

Public water system intakes receiving water from Oconee National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

98

Osceola National Forest in Florida

Streams and rivers flowing from Osceola National Forest 

No public water system intakes receive water from Osceola National Forest
No public water system intakes receive water from Osceola National Forest; 

therefore, it does not have an accompanying intake summary table.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

100

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma

Ouachita National Forest and public water system intakes receiving

more than 10% annual water supply from Ouachita National Forest
A P P E N D I X

101

Table A.19—Ouachita National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ouachita NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALEXA SPRINGS WATER 

COMPANY 1 of 3 AR 8 147 70.5% 70.5%

2 ALEXA SPRINGS WATER 

COMPANY 2 of 3 AR 8 147 70.5% 70.5%

3 ALEXA SPRINGS WATER 

COMPANY 3 of 3 AR 8 147 70.5% 70.5%

4 AMITY WATERWORKS AR 765 502 40.8% 40.8%

5 ARKADELPHIA WATERWORKS AR 16000 3868 34.3% 34.3%

6 ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER AR 1600 936 14.9% 14.9%

7 ASHLEY MINERAL SPRING AR 25 15751 10.2% 10.2%

8 BENTON WATERWORKS AR 18100 936 14.9% 14.9%

9 BLACK BEAR SPRINGS AR 25 63 49.3% 49.3%

10 BOONEVILLE DEVELOPMENT

CENTER 1 of 2 AR 138 281 18.6% 18.6%

11 BOONEVILLE DEVELOPMENT 

CENTER 2 of 2 AR 138 281 18.6% 18.6%

12 CAMDEN WATERWORKS AR 14447 8154 18.0% 18.0%

13 CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER 1 of 2 AR 104529 200 20.7% 20.7%

14 CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER 2 of 2 AR 104529 94 84.0% 84.0%

15 DANVILLE WATERWORKS AR 1353 984 31.0% 37.0%

16 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 1 of 4 AR 425 57323 0.8% 4.9%

17 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 2 of 4 AR 425 57323 0.8% 4.9%

18 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 3 of 4 AR 425 57323 0.8% 4.9%

19 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 4 of 4 AR 425 57323 0.8% 4.9%

20 DEQUEEN WATER WORK AR 6215 572 25.4% 25.4%

21 DIERKS WATER WORKS AR 1795 175 8.0% 8.0%

22 FOUNTAIN HILL WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 452 3928 3.5% 3.5%

23 FOUNTAIN HILL WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 452 3928 3.5% 3.5%

24 GLENWOOD WATER 

DEPARTMENT AR 3982 366 48.5% 48.5%

25 HOPE WATER LIGHT COMM AR 1150 5484 10.6% 10.6%

26 HOT SPRINGS UTILITIES 1 of 3 AR 30015 2153 52.0% 52.0%

27 HOT SPRINGS UTILITIES 2 of 3 AR 30015 2153 52.0% 52.0%

28 HOT SPRINGS UTILITIES 3 of 3 AR 30015 1879 55.0% 55.0%

29 HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE 

WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 7500 173 10.8% 10.8%

30 HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE 

WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 7500 173 10.8% 10.8%

31 JAMES FORK REGIONAL WATER 

DISTRICT AR 10935 25 39.4% 39.4%

32 KIMZEY REGIONAL WATER 

DISTRICT 1 of 2 AR 3714 738 27.7% 27.7%

33 KIMZEY REGIONAL WATER 

DISTRICT 2 of 2 AR 3714 2604 43.1% 43.1%

34 LITTLE RIVER CO RDA AR 4279 5342 10.9% 10.9%

(continued to next page)

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma

Public water system intakes receiving water from Ouachita National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

102

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ouachita NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

35 MALVERN WATERWORKS AR 8958 2604 43.1% 43.1%

36 MENA WATER DEPARTMENT AR 6090 67 70.1% 70.1%

37 MONTGONERY CO REGIONAL 

PWA AR 63 73 82.5% 82.5%

38 MT VALLEY SPRING CO 1 of 5 AR 4 85 22.0% 22.0%

39 MT VALLEY SPRING CO 2 of 5 AR 4 1879 55.0% 55.0%

40 MT VALLEY SPRING CO 3 of 5 AR 4 1879 55.0% 55.0%

41 MT VALLEY SPRING CO 4 of 5 AR 4 1879 55.0% 55.0%

42 MT VALLEY SPRINGCO 5 of 5 AR 4 1879 55.0% 55.0%

43 MURFREESBORO WATERWORKS AR 1819 428 32.1% 32.1%

44 N GARLAND CO REG WATER DIST AR 6455 1795 56.7% 56.7%

45 NASHVILLE WATERWORKS AR 2643 678 20.3% 20.3%

46 PERRYVILLE WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 2117 1530 58.0% 58.0%

47 PERRYVILLE WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 2117 1530 58.0% 58.0%

48 PLAINVIEW WATER 

DEPARTMENT AR 1063 980 67.7% 67.7%

49 PRESCOTT WATERWORKS AR 5198 2018 6.8% 6.8%

50 TEXARKANA WATER UTILITIES AR 28775 5342 10.9% 10.9%

51 USCOE OC - BRADY MTN AR 100 1648 57.5% 57.5%

52 USCOE OC - LITTLE FIR AR 100 982 52.4% 52.4%

53 USCOE OC - SPILLWAY AR 100 1795 56.7% 56.7%

54 WALDRON WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 2178 34 24.6% 24.7%

55 WALDRON WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 2178 19 31.0% 31.1%

56 WILDERNESS VALLEY SPRING AR 25 59 63.8% 63.8%

57 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 772320 0.2% 4.9%

58 BOSSIER CITY WATER SYSTEM, 

CITY OF 1 of 3 LA 19870 29789 2.6% 2.7%

59 BOSSIER CITY WATER SYSTEM, 

CITY OF 2 of 3 LA 19870 29789 2.6% 2.7%

60 BOSSIER CITY WATER SYSTEM, 

CITY OF 3 of 3 LA 19870 29789 2.6% 2.7%

61 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772320 0.2% 4.9%

62 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772320 0.2% 4.9%

63 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772104 0.2% 4.9%

64 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772320 0.2% 4.9%

65 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768538 0.2% 4.9%

66 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772210 0.2% 4.9%

67 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772320 0.2% 4.9%

68 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772210 0.2% 4.9%

69 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772210 0.2% 4.9%

(continued to next page)

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Ouachita National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

103

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ouachita NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

70 MONROE WATER SYSTEM LA 26286 21806 7.4% 7.5%

71 MORGAN CITY WATER SYSTEM LA 6352 86718 2.8% 3.9%

72 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772320 0.2% 4.9%

73 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772320 0.2% 4.9%

74 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772320 0.2% 4.9%

75 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772320 0.2% 4.9%

76 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772210 0.2% 4.9%

77 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772210 0.2% 4.9%

78 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772320 0.2% 4.9%

79 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772373 0.2% 4.9%

80 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772320 0.2% 4.9%

81 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772210 0.2% 4.9%

82 ST BERNARD PAR WATERWORK LA 33000 772320 0.2% 4.9%

83 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 EB LA 29517 772320 0.2% 4.9%

84 ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 772320 0.2% 4.9%

85 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772210 0.2% 4.9%

86 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772210 0.2% 4.9%

87 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772210 0.2% 4.9%

88 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772210 0.2% 4.9%

89 ST MARY PARISH WW DIST NO 5 LA 7500 83499 2.9% 4.1%

90 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772320 0.2% 4.9%

91 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772320 0.2% 4.9%

92 WATER & SEWER COMMISSION 

#4 OF ST MARY LA 4674 83550 2.9% 4.1%

93 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772320 0.2% 4.9%

94 ANTLERS OK 2600 1664 10.6% 10.6%

95 BROKEN BOW PWA OK 4320 1159 27.1% 27.2%

96 HEAVENER UTILITY AUTH - PSG 1 of 2 OK 1650 390 36.9% 36.9%

97 HEAVENER UTILITY AUTH - PSG 2 of 2 OK 1650 723 51.7% 51.7%

98 HUGO OK 5536 1933 9.1% 9.1%

99 IDABEL PUBLIC WORKS 

AUTHORITY OK 6952 1461 5.0% 5.0%

100 MCCURTAIN CO RWD #8 (MT. 

FORK WATER) OK 5685 1212 27.5% 27.6%

101 PUSHMATAHA CO RWD #3 OK 4825 1664 10.6% 10.6%

102 PVIA OK 10 1240 36.7% 36.7%

103 WESTERN FARMERS OK 86 1933 9.1% 9.1%

104 CITY OF TEXARKANA TX 19839 5342 10.9% 10.9%

a This percentage includes water from Ouachita National Forest.

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Ouachita National Forest (3 of 3 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

104

Ozark National Forest in Arkansas

Ozark National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 5% annual water supply from Ozark National Forest
A P P E N D I X

105

Ozark National Forest in Arkansas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Ozark National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ozark NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BATESVILLE WATER UTILITIES AR 11245 12290 5.1% 8.9%

2 BENTON CO WATER AR 4952 1201 6.5% 6.6%

3 CALICO ROCK WATERWORKS 1 of 5 AR 410 10990 4.5% 8.8%

4 CALICO ROCK WATERWORKS 2 of 5 AR 410 10990 4.5% 8.8%

5 CALICO ROCK WATERWORKS 3 of 5 AR 410 10990 4.5% 8.8%

6 CALICO ROCK WATERWORKS 4 of 5 AR 410 10990 4.5% 8.8%

7 CALICO ROCK WATERWORKS 5 of 5 AR 410 10990 4.5% 8.8%

8 CASS C C C AR 264 426 76.5% 76.6%

9 CITY CORPORATION 1 of 4 AR 7405 457 55.7% 55.7%

10 CITY CORPORATION 2 of 4 AR 7405 433 58.7% 58.7%

11 CITY CORPORATION 3 of 4 AR 7405 433 58.7% 58.7%

12 CITY CORPORATION 4 of 4 AR 7405 433 58.7% 58.7%

13 CLARKSVILLE WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 4052 142 14.1% 14.1%

14 CLARKSVILLE WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 4052 708 63.2% 63.3%

15 CLINTON WATERWORKS AR 5445 566 5.0% 5.0%

16 COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM AR 15257 1560 1.8% 1.8%

17 DANVILLE WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 1353 978 5.7% 37.0%

18 DANVILLE WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 1353 42 28.8% 28.8%

19 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 1 of 4 AR 425 57250 2.5% 4.9%

20 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 2 of 4 AR 425 57250 2.5% 4.9%

21 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 3 of 4 AR 425 57250 2.5% 4.9%

22 DARDANELLE WATERWORKS 4 of 4 AR 425 57250 2.5% 4.9%

23 DOVER WATERWORKS AR 1800 360 70.6% 70.6%

24

FORT SMITH WATER 

UTILITIES 1 of 2 AR 40129 537 17.0% 17.0%

25

FORT SMITH WATER 

UTILITIES 2 of 2 AR 40129 171 35.5% 35.5%

26

HERBER SPRINGS WATER 

SYSTEM AR 10914 1631 1.7% 1.7%

27 JASPER WATERWORKS 1 of 2 AR 383 185 26.8% 26.9%

28 JASPER WATERWORKS 2 of 2 AR 383 185 26.8% 26.9%

29

MARION COUNTY REG 

WATER DIST AR 2 6343 1.5% 6.4%

30

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

WATERWORKS AR 7063 11395 5.5% 9.7%

31 MULBERRY WATERWORKS AR 1608 29 16.1% 16.1%

32 PANGBURN WATERWORKS AR 2500 1929 1.5% 1.5%

33 PARIS WATERWORKS AR 4473 61 56.4% 56.5%

34 SEARCY WATERWORKS AR 22036 2428 1.2% 1.2%

35

SILOAM SPRINGS 

WATERWORKS AR 16767 649 3.1% 3.1%

36

SOUTHSIDE PUB WATER 

AUTHORITY AR 8827 12076 5.2% 9.1%

37

SUBIACO ACADEMY 

WATERWORKS AR 250 322 10.7% 10.7%

38 THE INN AT LOST BRIDGE AR 25 1322 5.9% 6.0%

39 USFS BLANCHARD AR 25 83 93.0% 93.1%

40 USFS GUNNER POOL AR 25 83 93.0% 93.1%

41 USFS WHITE ROCK AR 35 494 78.4% 78.5%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

106

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ozark NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

42

WAGON WHEEL 

RESTAURANT AR 150 5794 1.6% 6.0%

43 WHITE RIVER CAMPGROUND AR 250 6472 1.4% 6.2%

44

BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 0.3% 4.9%

45

DALCOUR WATERWORKS 

DIST LA 2666 766843 0.3% 4.9%

46 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 0.3% 4.9%

47 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 0.3% 4.9%

48 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 0.3% 4.9%

49 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 0.3% 4.9%

50 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 0.3% 4.9%

51 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 0.3% 4.9%

52 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 0.3% 4.9%

53

MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 0.3% 4.9%

54 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.3% 4.9%

55 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 0.3% 4.9%

56

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.3% 4.9%

57

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 0.3% 4.9%

58 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 0.3% 4.9%

59 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 0.3% 4.9%

60 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 0.3% 4.9%

61 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766896 0.3% 4.9%

62 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766843 0.3% 4.9%

63 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 0.3% 4.9%

64

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 0.3% 4.9%

65

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

1 EB LA 29517 766843 0.3% 4.9%

66

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 

2 WB LA 31485 766843 0.3% 4.9%

67 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 0.3% 4.9%

68 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 0.3% 4.9%

69 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 0.3% 4.9%

70 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 0.3% 4.9%

71 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.3% 4.9%

72 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 0.3% 4.9%

73 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 0.3% 4.9%

74 BURNT CABIN RWD OK 208 1585 1.4% 1.4%

75

CHEROKEE CO RWD # 2 

(KEYS) OK 1493 1527 1.4% 1.4%

76 CHEROKEE CO RWD #13 OK 1640 1527 1.4% 1.4%

77

EAST CENTRAL OKLA WATER 

AUTH OK 1200 1585 1.4% 1.4%

78 FIN & FEATHER RESORT OK 150 1585 1.4% 1.4%

79

FLINT RIDGE RURAL WATER 

DISTRICT 1 of 2 OK 750 859 2.3% 2.3%

Ozark National Forest in Arkansas

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Ozark National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

107

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Ozark NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS 

landsa

millions m3/year

80

FLINT RIDGE RURAL WATER 

DISTRICT 2 of 2 OK 750 859 2.3% 2.3%

81 GORE PWA OK 1688 1585 1.4% 1.4%

82 LRED (CHICKEN CREEK) OK 272 1585 1.4% 1.4%

83 LRED (LAKEWOOD) OK 200 1527 1.4% 1.4%

84 LRED (WILDCAT) OK 200 1527 1.4% 1.4%

85 LRED (WOODHAVEN) OK 200 1585 1.4% 1.4%

86 MONGOLDS WATER SYSTEM OK 30 1585 1.4% 1.4%

87 PETTIT BAY RESORT OK 30 1527 1.4% 1.4%

88 PETTIT MT WATER OK 90 1527 1.4% 1.4%

89 SEQUOYAH CO RWD # 5 OK 1075 1630 1.3% 1.3%

90

SEQUOYAH COUNTY WATER 

ASSOC OK 13460 1585 1.4% 1.4%

91 SPARROWHAWK CAMP OK 200 941 2.1% 2.1%

92 STILWELL OK 1092 160 1.0% 1.0%

93 TAHLEQUAH PWA OK 14458 971 2.1% 2.1%

94 TENKILLER AQUA PARK OK 150 1585 1.4% 1.4%

95 TENKILLER UTILITY CO OK 860 1585 1.4% 1.4%

a This percentage includes water from Ozark National Forest.

Ozark National Forest in Arkansas

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Ozark National Forest (3 of 3 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

108

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

Pisgah National Forest and public water system intakes 

receiving more than 10% annual water supply from Pisgah National Forest
A P P E N D I X

109

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

Public water system intakes receiving water from Pisgah National Forest (1 of 5 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Pisgah NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBERTVILLE UTILITIES BOARD AL 30186 33743 2.6% 13.8%

2 ARAB WATER WORKS BOARD AL 17576 34002 2.6% 13.7%

3 BRIDGEPORT UTILITIES BOARD AL 6000 31480 2.8% 14.7%

4 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44324 2.0% 10.6%

5 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM AL 10731 44222 2.0% 10.6%

6 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL 

UTILITIES BOARD OF) AL 77100 37771 2.3% 12.4%

7 DEKALB-JACKSON WATER 

SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 40 31698 2.8% 14.6%

8 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43327 2.0% 10.8%

9 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43327 2.0% 10.8%

10 FORT PAYNE WATER WORKS 

BOARD AL 7248 32789 2.7% 14.2%

11 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43327 2.0% 10.8%

12 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE PRO 

AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43327 2.0% 10.8%

13 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS 

& SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 6375 34002 2.6% 13.7%

14 GUNTERSVILLE WATER WORKS 

& SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 6375 34002 2.6% 13.7%

15 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 31310 35722 2.4% 13.0%

16 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 31310 36889 2.4% 12.6%

17

LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 14625 37964 2.3% 12.3%

18 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6185 34002 2.6% 13.7%

19 NORTH MARSHALL UTILITIES 2 of 2 AL 6185 34002 2.6% 13.7%

20

NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 1 of 3 AL 9375 32789 2.7% 14.2%

21

NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 2 of 3 AL 9375 32789 2.7% 14.2%

22

NORTHEAST ALABAMA WATER 

SYSTEM 3 of 3 AL 9375 33743 2.6% 13.8%

23 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 1 of 2 AL 10950 32789 2.7% 14.2%

24 SCOTTSBORO WATER WORKS 2 of 2 AL 10950 32789 2.7% 14.2%

25

SECTION-DUTTON WATER 

SYSTEM AL 32682 32789 2.7% 14.2%

26

SHEFFIELD UTILITIES 

DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44222 2.0% 10.6%

27

US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 1 of 2 AL 14250 35722 2.4% 13.0%

28

US ARMY AVIATION & MISSILE 

COMMAND 2 of 2 AL 14250 35722 2.4% 13.0%

29

WEST MORGAN-EAST 

LAWRENCE WATER AUTHORIT AL 26130 38097 2.3% 12.3%

30

WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2400 43327 2.0% 10.8%

31 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297492 0.3% 4.2%

32 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.5% 8.3%

33 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.5% 8.3%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

110

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Pisgah NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

34 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.5% 8.3%

35 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 57997 1.5% 8.3%

36 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297857 0.3% 4.2%

37 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 772398 0.1% 4.9%

38 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772398 0.1% 4.9%

39 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772398 0.1% 4.9%

40 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772182 0.1% 4.9%

41 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772398 0.1% 4.9%

42 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768616 0.1% 4.9%

43 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772288 0.1% 4.9%

44 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772398 0.1% 4.9%

45 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772288 0.1% 4.9%

46

MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772288 0.1% 4.9%

47 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772398 0.1% 4.9%

48 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772398 0.1% 4.9%

49

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

50

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

51 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772288 0.1% 4.9%

52 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772288 0.1% 4.9%

53 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772398 0.1% 4.9%

54 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772398 0.1% 4.9%

55 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772451 0.1% 4.9%

56 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772288 0.1% 4.9%

57

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 772398 0.1% 4.9%

58

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 

EB LA 29517 772398 0.1% 4.9%

59

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 772398 0.1% 4.9%

60 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772288 0.1% 4.9%

61 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772288 0.1% 4.9%

62 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772288 0.1% 4.9%

63 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772288 0.1% 4.9%

64 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772398 0.1% 4.9%

65 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772398 0.1% 4.9%

66 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772398 0.1% 4.9%

67

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 1 of 2 MS 533 46115 1.9% 10.2%

68

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 2 of 2 MS 533 46494 1.9% 10.1%

69 ALBEMARLE, CITY OF 1 of 2 NC 8250 4407 < 0.05% < 0.05%

70 ALBEMARLE, CITY OF 2 of 2 NC 8250 4735 < 0.05% 0.7%

71

ANSON COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM NC 13000 6546 < 0.05% 0.8%

72 ASHEVILLE CITY OF 1 of 2 NC 24860 141 75.4% 75.5%

73 ASHEVILLE CITY OF 2 of 2 NC 24860 130 1.7% 1.7%

74 BEECH MOUNTAIN, TOWN OF 1 of 2 NC 1209 342 0.9% 6.9%

75 BEECH MOUNTAIN, TOWN OF 2 of 2 NC 1209 342 0.9% 6.9%

76 BELMONT, CITY OF NC 10076 2362 15.9% 16.0%

77 BREVARD, CITY OF NC 8700 37 63.1% 63.1%

78 BURNSVILLE, TOWN OF 1 of 2 NC 1975 112 10.5% 10.5%

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Pisgah National Forest (2 of 5 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

111

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Pisgah NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

79 BURNSVILLE, TOWN OF 2 of 2 NC 1975 112 10.5% 10.5%

80 CANTON, TOWN OF NC 7050 269 53.3% 53.3%

81

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 

UTILITY 1 of 2 NC 394095 2106 17.9% 17.9%

82

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 

UTILITY 2 of 2 NC 394095 2177 17.3% 17.3%

83 DALLAS, TOWN OF NC 1699 2177 17.3% 17.3%

84 DAVIDSON WATER INC NC 12288 2605 0.1% 0.1%

85

DAVIE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM NC 8380 2175 0.1% 0.1%

86 DENTON, TOWN OF NC 3080 4407 < 0.05% < 0.05%

87 GRANITE FALLS, TOWN OF NC 6250 1326 28.4% 28.4%

88 HENDERSONVILLE, CITY OF 1 of 3 NC 10900 88 84.1% 84.2%

89 HENDERSONVILLE, CITY OF 2 of 3 NC 10900 141 75.4% 75.5%

90 HENDERSONVILLE, CITY OF 3 of 3 NC 10900 141 75.4% 75.5%

91 HICKORY CITY OF NC 55791 1370 27.5% 27.5%

92 JONESVILLE, TOWN OF NC 3012 995 0.2% 0.2%

93 KING, CITY OF NC 20490 1923 0.1% 0.1%

94 LENOIR, CITY OF NC 19500 1326 28.4% 28.4%

95 LINCOLN COUNTY WTP NC 24460 2031 18.5% 18.6%

96 LONGVIEW, TOWN OF NC 1244 1370 27.5% 27.5%

97 MARION, CITY OF 1 of 3 NC 2883 191 42.8% 42.9%

98 MARION, CITY OF 2 of 3 NC 2883 158 38.4% 38.5%

99 MARION, CITY OF 3 of 3 NC 2883 158 38.4% 38.5%

100 MARS HILL, TOWN OF 1 of 2 NC 1580 45 9.4% 9.4%

101 MARS HILL, TOWN OF 2 of 2 NC 1580 45 9.4% 9.4%

102

MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

WATER SYSTEM NC 14250 4813 < 0.05% 0.8%

103 MOORESVILLE TOWN OF NC 30339 1958 19.2% 19.3%

104 MORGANTON CITY OF NC 25500 739 23.7% 23.8%

105 MOUNT HOLLY, CITY OF NC 13656 2177 17.3% 17.3%

106 NORWOOD, TOWN OF NC 4690 4813 < 0.05% 0.8%

107

RICHMOND COUNTY WATER

SYSTEM NC 8470 6546 < 0.05% 0.8%

108 RIVER POINTE ESTATES 1 of 2 NC 236 3205 11.7% 11.8%

109 RIVER POINTE ESTATES 2 of 2 NC 236 3205 11.7% 11.8%

110 SALISBURY-ROWAN NC 49000 2758 0.1% 0.1%

111 SPRUCE PINE, TOWN OF 1 of 4 NC 1250 166 5.1% 5.1%

112 SPRUCE PINE, TOWN OF 2 of 4 NC 1250 194 4.4% 4.4%

113 SPRUCE PINE, TOWN OF 3 of 4 NC 1250 194 4.4% 4.4%

114 SPRUCE PINE, TOWN OF 4 of 4 NC 1250 194 4.4% 4.4%

115 STATESVILLE, CITY OF NC 13661 1736 21.7% 21.7%

116 TROUTMAN, TOWN OF 1 of 3 NC 902 1958 19.2% 19.3%

117 TROUTMAN, TOWN OF 2 of 3 NC 902 1958 19.2% 19.3%

118 TROUTMAN, TOWN OF 3 of 3 NC 902 1958 19.2% 19.3%

119 TWO RIVERS UTILITIES NC 40255 2177 17.3% 17.3%

120 VALDESE, TOWN OF NC 13700 1294 29.1% 29.1%

121 WEAVERVILLE, TOWN OF NC 2800 164 18.2% 18.2%

122 WILKESBORO, TOWN OF NC 3413 486 0.4% 0.4%

123 WINSTON-SALEM, CITY OF 1 of 2 NC 52129 1923 0.1% 0.1%

124 WINSTON-SALEM, CITY OF 2 of 2 NC 52129 2536 0.1% 0.1%

125

WOODFIN SANITARY WATER 

AND SEWER NC 2250 35 1.7% 1.7%

126 CAMDEN CITY OF SC 15405 4758 7.9% 7.9%

127 CASSATT WATER CO #1 SC 1624 4758 7.9% 7.9%

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Pisgah National Forest (3 of 5 pages)

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

112

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Pisgah NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

128 CATAWBA RIVER WTP SC 25 3991 9.4% 9.4%

129 CHERAW TOWN OF SC 5283 7237 < 0.05% 0.7%

130 CHESTER METRO SC 14051 4544 8.3% 8.3%

131 FLORENCE CITY OF SC 2359 7675 < 0.05% 0.7%

132 GCWSD/WACCAMAW NECK 1 of 2 SC 8447 16893 < 0.05% 0.3%

133 GCWSD/WACCAMAW NECK 2 of 2 SC 8447 16893 < 0.05% 0.3%

134 GSW&SA 1 of 2 SC 8556 13114 < 0.05% 0.4%

135 GSW&SA 2 of 2 SC 8556 13114 < 0.05% 0.4%

136 INVISTA MAY SC 1000 5069 7.4% 7.4%

137

LAKE MARION REGIONAL 

WATER PLT SC 25 14394 2.6% 3.9%

138 LUGOFF ELGIN WATER AUTH SC 18530 4758 7.9% 7.9%

139 ROCK HILL CITY OF SC 69764 3385 11.1% 11.1%

140 BUSH BROTHERS #3 TN 323 5763 15.1% 19.8%

141 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54836 1.6% 8.6%

142 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 360 580 0.5% 11.4%

143 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 360 580 0.5% 11.4%

144 CARDERVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 360 580 0.5% 11.4%

145 CIRCLE VALLEY TRAILER PARK TN 50 23656 3.7% 13.9%

146 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48338 1.8% 9.7%

147 DAYTON WATER DEPT TN 21235 28258 3.1% 16.4%

148 DECATUR WATER DEPT 1 of 2 TN 2810 23656 3.7% 13.9%

149 DECATUR WATER DEPT 2 of 2 TN 2810 23656 3.7% 13.9%

150

E.I. DUPONT, NEW 

JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54923 1.6% 8.5%

151 EASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICT TN 48211 28645 3.0% 16.2%

152 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 1 of 3 TN 8964 164 0.2% 39.0%

153 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 2 of 3 TN 8964 164 0.2% 39.0%

154 ELIZABETHTON WATER DEPT 3 of 3 TN 8964 977 0.3% 20.2%

155 ERWIN UTILITIES TN 3113 1093 13.5% 22.2%

156 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56376 1.5% 8.3%

157 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 1 of 2 TN 9356 3201 0.1% 16.7%

158 FIRST U D OF HAWKINS CO,#1 2 of 2 TN 9356 3201 0.1% 16.7%

159 FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN COUNTY TN 6669 46494 1.9% 10.1%

160

FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX 

COUNT 1 of 2 TN 40625 11682 7.5% 14.4%

161

FIRST UTIL DIST OF KNOX 

COUNT 2 of 2 TN 40625 11682 7.5% 14.4%

162 GRASSHOPPER CREEK P.U.A. TN 100 28258 3.1% 16.4%

163

GREENEVILLE WATER & LIGHT 

COMM TN 24361 1407 10.5% 20.8%

164

JEFFERSON CITY WATER & 

SEWER C 1 of 2 TN 4197 3814 0.1% 14.0%

165

JEFFERSON CITY WATER & 

SEWER C 2 of 2 TN 4197 3814 0.1% 14.0%

166 JOHNSON CITY WATER DEPT TN 47998 977 0.3% 20.2%

167 JONESBOROUGH WATER DEPT TN 26501 1185 12.5% 23.4%

168 KINGSPORT WATER DEPT TN 91499 2365 0.1% 20.5%

169 KINGSTON WATER SYSTEM TN 4547 16739 5.2% 18.7%

170

KNOX-CHAPMAN UTILITY 

DISTRICT TN 30691 6543 13.3% 17.5%

171

KNOXVILLE UTILITIES BOARDKUB TN 236338 11493 7.6% 14.6%

172 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 702 3376 0.1% 15.9%

173 LAKEVIEW UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 702 3376 0.1% 15.9%

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Pisgah National Forest (4 of 5 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

113

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Pisgah NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

174 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 1 of 2 TN 11445 16401 5.3% 19.1%

175 LENOIR CITY UTILITY BOARD 2 of 2 TN 11445 16401 5.3% 19.1%

176 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 1 of 2 TN 6141 16401 5.3% 19.1%

177 LOUDON UTILITIES BOARD 2 of 2 TN 6141 16401 5.3% 19.1%

178

LUTTRELL-BLAINE-CORRYTON 

U.D. TN 1760 3851 0.1% 13.9%

179 MORRISTOWN WATER SYSTEM TN 15509 3646 0.1% 14.7%

180

NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER 

DEPT TN 2602 49167 1.8% 9.5%

181 NEWPORT UTILITIES BOARD TN 25037 2500 21.0% 24.5%

182 NORTHEAST KNOX U D TN 21048 4170 0.1% 12.8%

183

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49167 1.8% 9.5%

184

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49167 1.8% 9.5%

185 PERSIA UTILITY DISTRICT TN 4414 3441 0.1% 15.6%

186

PIGEON FORGE WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 7062 5763 15.1% 19.8%

187 RIVERSIDE CATFISH HOUSE TN 30 30074 2.9% 15.4%

188 ROCKWOOD WATER SYSTEM TN 9273 23132 3.8% 14.2%

189 SEVIERVILLE WATER SYSTEM TN 31278 6457 13.5% 17.7%

190

SHADY GROVE HARBOR 

MARINA TN 30 28481 3.1% 16.3%

191 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 862 977 0.3% 20.2%

192 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 862 977 0.3% 20.2%

193 SIAM UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 862 977 0.3% 20.2%

194

SOUTH PITTSBURG WATER 

SYSTEM TN 6522 31480 2.8% 14.7%

195 SPRING CITY WATER SYSTEM TN 2554 23405 3.7% 14.0%

196

SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY 

DISTRICT 1 of 2 TN 1179 3376 0.1% 15.9%

197

SURGOINSVILLE UTILITY 

DISTRICT 2 of 2 TN 1179 3376 0.1% 15.9%

198

TENN-AMERICAN WATER 

COMPANY TN 185910 29949 2.9% 15.5%

199 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 1 of 3 TN 3723 23405 3.7% 14.0%

200 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 2 of 3 TN 3723 23405 3.7% 14.0%

201 WATTS BAR UTILITY DISTRICT 3 of 3 TN 3723 23405 3.7% 14.0%

202

WAVERLY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54836 1.6% 8.6%

203 WHITE PINE WATER SYSTEM 1 of 2 TN 1057 5593 15.6% 20.4%

204 WHITE PINE WATER SYSTEM 2 of 2 TN 1057 5593 15.6% 20.4%

205 WITT UTILITY DISTRICT TN 2498 2029 7.3% 15.7%

a This percentage includes water from Pisgah National Forest.

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Pisgah National Forest (5 of 5 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

114

Sabine National Forest in Texas

Sabine National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Sabine National Forest
A P P E N D I X

115

Table A.22—Sabine National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Sabine NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 DESOTO PARISH WATER 

WORKS DISTRICT #1 LA 1660 5243.4 0.1% 0.1%

2 MANSFIELD WATER 

SYSTEM LA 1271 5243.4 0.1% 0.1%

3 MANY WATER SYSTEM, 

CITY OF LA 1144 6969.7 2.0% 2.0%

4 PENDLETON WATER 

ASSSOCIATION LA 2100 7031.31 2.1% 2.1%

5 SOUTH TOLEDO BEND 

WATER DISTRICT LA 5454 7426.59 2.3% 2.3%

6 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 1 of 3 TX 20833 11270.61 0.2% 4.6%

7 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 2 of 3 TX 20833 10083.1 0.3% 5.1%

8 CITY OF BEAUMONT 

WATER UTILITY DEPT 3 of 3 TX 20833 10083.1 0.3% 5.1%

9 CITY OF HEMPHILL 1 of 2 TX 1025 7031.31 2.1% 2.1%

10 CITY OF HEMPHILL 2 of 2 TX 1025 7031.31 2.1% 2.1%

11 CITY OF HUXLEY TX 2226 5914.74 0.7% 0.7%

12 CITY OF ROSE CITY TX 729 11358.72 0.2% 4.5%

13 CITY OF SAN AUGUSTINE 1 of 2 TX 1736 85.59 2.1% 2.1%

14 CITY OF SAN AUGUSTINE 2 of 2 TX 1736 85.59 2.1% 2.1%

15 DUPONT SABINE RIVER 

WORKS 1 of 2 TX 733 11629.17 2.5% 2.5%

16 DUPONT SABINE RIVER 

WORKS 2 of 2 TX 733 11629.17 2.5% 2.5%

17 EL CAMINO BAY WATER 

SYSTEM TX 363 7426.59 2.3% 2.3%

18 G M WSC 1 of 3 TX 3455 189.73 3.6% 3.6%

19 G M WSC 2 of 3 TX 3455 54.1 5.8% 5.8%

20 G M WSC 3 of 3 TX 3455 54.1 5.8% 5.8%

21 PENDLETON HARBOR TX 576 7031.31 2.1% 2.1%

22 TBCD WINNIE STOWELL TX 3297 10083.1 0.3% 5.1%

a This percentage includes water from Sabine National Forest.

Sabine National Forest in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Sabine National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

116

Sam Houston National Forest in Texas

Sam Houston National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Sam Houston National Forest
A P P E N D I X

117

Table A.23—Sam Houston National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Sam Houston 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BAYTOWN AREA WATER 

AUTHORITY TX 15 5751 3.9% 3.9%

2 CITY OF BAYTOWN 1 of 4 TX 16223 5891 3.8% 3.9%

3 CITY OF BAYTOWN 2 of 4 TX 16223 5891 3.8% 3.9%

4 CITY OF BAYTOWN 3 of 4 TX 16223 5891 3.8% 3.9%

5 CITY OF BAYTOWN 4 of 4 TX 16223 5891 3.8% 3.9%

6 CITY OF HOUSTON 1 of 4 TX 16528 15306 0.2% 0.4%

7 CITY OF HOUSTON 2 of 4 TX 16528 5751 3.9% 3.9%

8 CITY OF HOUSTON 3 of 4 TX 16528 3426 6.6% 6.6%

9 CITY OF HOUSTON 4 of 4 TX 16528 3426 6.6% 6.6%

10 CITY OF HOUSTON 

BELLEAU WOODS TX 795 3368 6.7% 6.7%

11 CITY OF HUMBLE 1 of 2 TX 2916 3368 6.7% 6.7%

12 CITY OF HUMBLE 2 of 2 TX 2916 3368 6.7% 6.7%

13 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 1 of 6 TX 6425 25 12.6% 12.6%

14 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 2 of 6 TX 6425 25 12.6% 12.6%

15 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 3 of 6 TX 6425 268 13.6% 13.6%

16 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 4 of 6 TX 6425 268 13.6% 13.6%

17 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 5 of 6 TX 6425 268 13.6% 13.6%

18 CITY OF HUNTSVILLE 6 of 6 TX 6425 90 25.4% 25.4%

19 COUNTRY TERRACE 

SUBDIVISION 1 of 3 TX 513 5751 3.9% 3.9%

20 COUNTRY TERRACE 

SUBDIVISION 2 of 3 TX 513 5751 3.9% 3.9%

21 COUNTRY TERRACE 

SUBDIVISION 3 of 3 TX 513 5751 3.9% 3.9%

22 CROSBY MUD 1 of 3 TX 1562 3515 6.4% 6.5%

23 CROSBY MUD 2 of 3 TX 1562 3515 6.4% 6.5%

24 CROSBY MUD 3 of 3 TX 1562 3515 6.4% 6.5%

25 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS 

CHANNELVIEW 1 of 4 TX 263 3515 6.4% 6.5%

26 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS 

CHANNELVIEW 2 of 4 TX 263 3515 6.4% 6.5%

27 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS 

CHANNELVIEW 3 of 4 TX 263 3515 6.4% 6.5%

28 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS 

CHANNELVIEW 4 of 4 TX 263 3515 6.4% 6.5%

29 EXXON MOBIL BAYTOWN 

REFINERY TX 7000 5891 3.8% 3.9%

30 HARRIS COUNTY MUD 344 1 of 2 TX 1332 3426 6.6% 6.6%

31 HARRIS COUNTY MUD 344 2 of 2 TX 1332 3426 6.6% 6.6%

32 HARRIS COUNTY MUD 412 TX 2649 3426 6.6% 6.6%

33 HARRIS COUNTY WCID 1 1 of 2 TX 4055 5751 3.9% 3.9%

34 HARRIS COUNTY WCID 1 2 of 2 TX 4055 5751 3.9% 3.9%

35 HARRIS COUNTY WCID 21 TX 3746 5751 3.9% 3.9%

36 NEWPORT MUD 1 of 3 TX 3133 3515 6.4% 6.5%

37 NEWPORT MUD 2 of 3 TX 3133 3515 6.4% 6.5%

38 NEWPORT MUD 3 of 3 TX 3133 3515 6.4% 6.5%

39 TBCD WEST TREATMENT 

PLANT TX 1827 15760 0.1% 0.4%

40 WATERWOOD MUD 1 1 of 2 TX 524 13514 0.1% 0.3%

41 WATERWOOD MUD 1 2 of 2 TX 524 13514 0.1% 0.3%

a This percentage includes water from Sam Houston National Forest.

Sam Houston National Forest in Texas

Public water system intakes receiving water from Sam Houston National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

118

St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas

St. Francis National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from St. Francis National Forest 
A P P E N D I X

119

St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas

Public water system intakes receiving water from St. Francis National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

St. Francis NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 BELLE CHASSE WATER DISTRICT LA 17391 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

2 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

3 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

4 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 766628 < 0.05% 4.9%

5 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

6 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 763064 < 0.05% 4.9%

7 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

8 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

9 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

10 MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

11 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

12 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

13 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

14 NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

15 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

16 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

17 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

18 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

19 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 766896 < 0.05% 4.9%

20 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

21

ST BERNARD PAR

WATERWORK LA 33000 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

22

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 

EB LA 29517 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

23

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

24 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

25 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

26 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

27 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 766733 < 0.05% 4.9%

28 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

29 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

30 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 766843 < 0.05% 4.9%

a This percentage includes water from St. Francis National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

120

Sumter National Forest in South Carolina

Sumter National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 5% annual water supply from Sumter National Forest
A P P E N D I X

121

Table A.25—Sumter National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID Public Water System name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Sumter NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 1 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

2 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 2 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

3 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 3 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

4 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 4 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

5 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 5 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

6 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 6 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

7 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 7 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

8 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 8 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

9 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 9 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

10 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 10 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

11 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 11 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

12 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 12 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

13 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 13 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

14 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 14 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

15 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 15 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

16 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 16 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

17 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 17 of 18 GA 8870 8957 4.0% 12.5%

18 AUGUSTA-RICHMOND CO WS 18 of 18 GA 8870 8136 4.5% 13.8%

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY GA 31379 8045 4.5% 14.0%

20 HARTWELL GA 7116 3522 6.6% 26.8%

21 LAVONIA GA 4004 3522 6.6% 26.8%

22 LINCOLNTON GA 1657 7340 4.1% 14.4%

23 POOLER 1 of 2 GA 3770 10786 3.4% 10.4%

24 POOLER 2 of 2 GA 3770 10786 3.4% 10.4%

25 RINCON 1 of 2 GA 4940 10786 3.4% 10.4%

26 RINCON 2 of 2 GA 4940 10604 3.4% 10.6%

27 SAVANNAH-I & D 1 of 4 GA 2625 10786 3.4% 10.4%

28 SAVANNAH-I & D 2 of 4 GA 2625 10786 3.4% 10.4%

29 SAVANNAH-I& D 3 of 4 GA 2625 10786 3.4% 10.4%

30 SAVANNAH-I & D 4 of 4 GA 2625 10604 3.4% 10.6%

31 THOMSON-MCDUFFIE CO W&S 

COMM GA 8859 7340 4.1% 14.4%

32 WASHINGTON GA 2052 7340 4.1% 14.4%

33 ANDERSON REGIONAL WTR SYS SC 25 3522 6.6% 26.8%

34 BJW&SA 1 of 3 SC 16468 10786 3.4% 10.4%

35 BJW&SA 2 of 3 SC 16468 10786 3.4% 10.4%

36 BJW&SA 3 of 3 SC 16468 10604 3.4% 10.6%

37 CARLISLE CONE MILLS SC 350 3292 0.7% 0.7%

38 EDGEFIELD CO W&SA SC 24652 8136 4.5% 13.8%

39 GREENVILLE WATER SYSTEM SC 116723 775 7.7% 14.0%

40 LAKE MARION REGIONAL 

WATER PLT SC 25 14389 1.3% 3.9%

41 MCCORMICK CPW SC 2678 7340 4.1% 14.4%

42 NORTH AUGUSTA CITY OF SC 26273 8136 4.5% 13.8%

43 SALEM TOWN OF 1 of 4 SC 456 425 3.3% 14.4%

44 SALEM TOWN OF 2 of 4 SC 456 425 3.3% 14.4%

45 SALEM TOWN OF 3 of 4 SC 456 425 3.3% 14.4%

46 SALEM TOWN OF 4 of 4 SC 456 132 34.5% 35.8%

47 UNION CITY OF SC 12757 3120 0.3% 0.4%

48 WALHALLA CITY OF SC 16309 29 13.7% 13.7%

49 WEST COLUMBIA CITY OF SC 17143 7924 2.3% 2.3%

50 WESTMINSTER CITY OF SC 7644 175 41.0% 41.1%

51 WHITMIRE TOWN OF SC 2560 576 7.3% 7.3%

a This percentage includes water from Sumter National Forest.

Sumter National Forest in South Carolina

Public water system intakes receiving water from Sumter National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

122

Talladega National Forest in Alabama

Talladega National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

more than 10% annual water supply from Talladega National Forest
A P P E N D I X

123

Talladega National Forest in Alabama

Public water system intakes receiving water from Talladega National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Talladega NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALEXANDER CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT AL 27000 3313 2.0% 2.0%

2 ANNISTON WATER & SEWER 

BOARD AL 30000 26 78.4% 78.4%

3 CALHOUN COUNTY WATER & 

FIRE PR AUTHORITY 1 of 3 AL 5126 134 1.9% 1.9%

4 CALHOUN COUNTY WATER & 

FIRE PR AUTHORITY 2 of 3 AL 5126 81 3.1% 3.1%

5 CALHOUN COUNTY WATER & 

FIRE PR AUTHORITY 3 of 3 AL 5126 195 48.9% 49.0%

6 CENTRAL ELMORE WATER 

AUTHORITY AL 32877 3970 1.6% 1.6%

7 CLANTON WATER 

DEPARTMENT AL 13500 12874 3.1% 7.5%

8 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 1 of 4 AL 1813 19754 2.3% 5.3%

9 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 2 of 4 AL 1813 19723 2.3% 5.3%

10 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 3 of 4 AL 1813 19723 2.3% 5.3%

11 ELMORE WATER & SEWER 

AUTHORITY 4 of 4 AL 1813 19723 2.3% 5.3%

12 FIVE STAR WATER SUPPLY 

DISTRICT AL 100 19658 2.3% 5.3%

13 GADSDEN WATER WORKS AND 

SEWER BOARD AL 46551 8144 0.7% 7.7%

14 HEFLIN WATER WORKS AL 8607 33 36.0% 36.0%

15 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 3801 28692 0.4% 2.4%

16 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 3801 28692 0.4% 2.4%

17 JACKSONVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6870 81 3.1% 3.1%

18 JACKSONVILLE UTILITIES 1 of 2 AL 6870 81 3.1% 3.1%

19 MARBURY WATER SYSTEM, 

INC. AL 3660 19754 2.3% 5.3%

20 MILLBROOK UTILITIES AL 4503 19754 2.3% 5.3%

21 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 1 of 13 AL 5601 6091 1.1% 1.4%

22 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 2 of 13 AL 5601 6030 1.1% 1.4%

23 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 3 of 13 AL 5601 6030 1.1% 1.4%

24 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 4 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

25 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 5 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

26 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 6 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

124

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Talladega NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

27 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 7 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

28 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 8 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

29 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 9 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

30 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 10 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

31 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 11 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

32 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 12 of 13 AL 5601 19810 2.3% 5.3%

33 MONTGOMERY WATER 

WORKS 13 of 13 AL 5601 19723 2.3% 5.3%

34 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 1 of 4 AL 3788 10117 2.5% 8.1%

35 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 2 of 4 AL 3788 10117 2.5% 8.1%

36 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 3 of 4 AL 3788 10117 2.5% 8.1%

37 PELL CITY WATER WORKS 4 of 4 AL 3788 9977 2.6% 8.2%

38 PIEDMONT UTILITIES BOARD AL 8496 182 27.9% 28.2%

39 PINE HILL WATER 

DEPARTMENT AL 2475 28225 2.3% 4.4%

40 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 1 of 11 AL 2330 20502 2.2% 5.1%

41 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 2 of 11 AL 2330 20502 2.2% 5.1%

42 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 3 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

43 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 4 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

44 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 5 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

45 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 6 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

46 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 7 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

47 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 8 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

48 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 9 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

49 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 10 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

50 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS 

BOARD OF) 11 of 11 AL 2330 19810 2.3% 5.3%

51 SHELBY COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 32337 11472 3.2% 8.2%

52 SOUTHSIDE WATER WORKS AL 5357 8682 0.6% 7.2%

53 SPANISH FORT WATER SYSTEM AL 2688 61837 1.3% 3.1%

Talladega National Forest in Alabama

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Talladega National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

125

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Talladega NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

54 SYLACAUGA UTILITIES BOARD AL 7537 114 46.5% 46.5%

55 TALLADEGA WATER AND 

SEWER BOARD, CITY OF 1 of 5 AL 4023 248 22.2% 22.2%

56 TALLADEGA WATER AND 

SEWER BOARD, CITY OF 2 of 5 AL 4023 248 22.2% 22.2%

57 TALLADEGA WATER AND 

SEWER BOARD, CITY OF 3 of 5 AL 4023 248 22.2% 22.2%

58 TALLADEGA WATER AND 

SEWER BOARD, CITY OF 4 of 5 AL 4023 660 29.6% 29.6%

59 TALLADEGA WATER AND 

SEWER BOARD, CITY OF 5 of 5 AL 4023 156 35.3% 35.3%

60 TALLADEGA-SHELBY WATER 

TREATMENT PLANT AL 32 10728 2.9% 8.2%

61 TALLASSEE WATER WORKS AL 7500 5047 1.3% 1.7%

62 TRI COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM 1 of 5 AL 2187 19754 2.3% 5.3%

63 TRI COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM 2 of 5 AL 2187 19754 2.3% 5.3%

64 TRI COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM 3 of 5 AL 2187 19754 2.3% 5.3%

65 TRI COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM 4 of 5 AL 2187 19723 2.3% 5.3%

66 TRI COMMUNITY WATER 

SYSTEM 5 of 5 AL 2187 19723 2.3% 5.3%

67 TUSKEGEE UTILITIES BOARD AL 13500 5047 1.3% 1.7%

68 WILCOX COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 1319 27453 2.4% 4.5%

a This percentage includes water from Talladega National Forest.

Talladega National Forest in Alabama

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from Talladega National Forest (3 of 3 pages)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

126

Tombigbee National Forest in Mississippi

Tombigbee National Forest and public water system intakes receiving 

water from Tombigbee National Forest
A P P E N D I X

127

Table A.27—Tombigbee National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID Public Water System name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Tombigbee 

NF only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 3801 28700 0.5% 2.4%

2 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 3801 28700 0.5% 2.4%

3 SPANISH FORT WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2688 61869 0.3% 3.1%

a This percentage includes water from Tombigbee National Forest.

Tombigbee National Forest in Mississippi

Public water system intakes receiving water from Tombigbee National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

128

Tuskegee National Forest in Alabama

Tuskegee National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Tuskegee National Forest
A P P E N D I X

129

Table A.28—Tuskegee National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number for 

system State

Population 

served by 

intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Tuskegee NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 1 of 4 AL 1813 19771 0.1% 5.3%

2 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 2 of 4 AL 1813 19740 0.1% 5.3%

3 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 3 of 4 AL 1813 19740 0.1% 5.3%

4 ELMORE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY 4 of 4 AL 1813 19740 0.1% 5.3%

5 FIVE STAR WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT AL 100 19675 0.1% 5.3%

6 LOACHAPOKA WATER AUTHORITY AL 5180 76 16.3% 16.3%

7 MARBURY WATER SYSTEM, INC. AL 3660 19771 0.1% 5.3%

8 MILLBROOK UTILITIES AL 4503 19771 0.1% 5.3%

9 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 1 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

10 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 2 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

11 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 3 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

12 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 4 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

13 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 5 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

14 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 6 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

15 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 7 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

16 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 8 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

17 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 9 of 13 AL 5601 19827 0.1% 5.3%

18 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 10 of 13 AL 5601 19740 0.1% 5.3%

19 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 11 of 13 AL 5601 6093 0.3% 1.4%

20 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 12 of 13 AL 5601 6033 0.3% 1.4%

21 MONTGOMERY WATER WORKS 13 of 13 AL 5601 6033 0.3% 1.4%

22 PINE HILL WATER DEPARTMENT AL 2475 28247 0.1% 4.4%

23 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 1 of 12 AL 2330 20519 0.1% 5.1%

24 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 2 of 12 AL 2330 20519 0.1% 5.1%

25 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 3 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

26 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 4 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

27 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 5 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

28 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 6 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

29 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 7 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

30 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 8 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

31 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 9 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

32 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 10 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

33 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 11 of 12 AL 2330 19827 0.1% 5.3%

34 PRATTVILLE (WATER WORKS BOARD OF) 12 of 12 AL 2330 192 0.5% 0.5%

35 SPANISH FORT WATER SYSTEM AL 2688 61874 < 0.05% 3.1%

36 TALLASSEE WATER WORKS AL 7500 5050 0.4% 1.7%

37 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 1 of 5 AL 2187 19771 0.1% 5.3%

38 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 2 of 5 AL 2187 19771 0.1% 5.3%

39 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 3 of 5 AL 2187 19771 0.1% 5.3%

40 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 4 of 5 AL 2187 19740 0.1% 5.3%

41 TRI COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM 5 of 5 AL 2187 19740 0.1% 5.3%

42 TUSKEGEE UTILITIES BOARD AL 13500 5050 0.4% 1.7%

43 WILCOX COUNTY WATER SYSTEM AL 1319 27476 0.1% 4.5%

a This percentage includes water from Tuskegee National Forest.

Tuskegee National Forest in Alabama

Public water system intakes receiving water from Tuskegee National Forest
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

130

Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolina

Uwharrie National Forest and public water system intakes receiving water from Uwharrie National Forest
A P P E N D I X

131

Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolina

Public water system intakes receiving water from Uwharrie National Forest

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

Uwharrie NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ALBEMARLE, CITY OF NC 8250 4733.65 0.7% 0.7%

2 ANSON COUNTY WATER SYSTEM NC 13000 6544.46 0.7% 0.8%

3 BLADEN BLUFFS WATER SYSTEM NC 5600 4492.74 < 0.05% < 0.05%

4 BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM NC 5129 4797.33 < 0.05% < 0.05%

5 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 1 of 6 NC 6899 8878 < 0.05% < 0.05%

6 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 2 of 6 NC 6899 8878 < 0.05% < 0.05%

7 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 3 of 6 NC 6899 8878 < 0.05% < 0.05%

8 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 4 of 6 NC 6899 8713.36 < 0.05% < 0.05%

9 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 5 of 6 NC 6899 4797.33 < 0.05% < 0.05%

10 CFPUA-WILMINGTON 6 of 6 NC 6899 4797.33 < 0.05% < 0.05%

11 DUNN, CITY OF NC 5874 3370.07 < 0.05% < 0.05%

12 FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS 

COMM NC 99000 3940.15 < 0.05% < 0.05%

13 HARNETT CO DEPT OF PUBLIC 

UTIL NC 45002 3065.08 < 0.05% < 0.05%

14 INTERNATIONAL PAPER 

COMPANY NC 925 4797.33 < 0.05% < 0.05%

15 MONTGOMERY COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM NC 14250 4811.43 0.7% 0.8%

16 NORWOOD, TOWN OF NC 4690 4811.43 0.7% 0.8%

17 PILGRIM`S PRIDE WATER SYSTEM NC 450 933.74 < 0.05% < 0.05%

18 RICHMOND COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM NC 8470 6544.46 0.7% 0.8%

19 SANFORD, CITY OF NC 47709 2857.42 < 0.05% < 0.05%

20

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 1 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

21

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 2 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

22

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 3 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

23

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 4 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

24

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 5 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

25

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 6 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

26

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 7 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

27

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 8 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

28

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 9 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

29

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 10 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

30

THE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD 

ISLAND 11 of 11 NC 144 9053.92 < 0.05% < 0.05%

31 CHERAW TOWN OF SC 5283 7235.15 0.7% 0.7%

32 FLORENCE CITY OF SC 2359 7673.05 0.6% 0.7%

33 GCWSD/WACCAMAW NECK 1 of 2 SC 8447 16890.89 0.3% 0.3%

34 GCWSD/WACCAMAW NECK 2 of 2 SC 8447 16890.89 0.3% 0.3%

35 GSW&SA 1 of 2 SC 8556 13112.44 0.4% 0.4%

36 GSW&SA 2 of 2 SC 8556 13112.44 0.4% 0.4%

a This percentage includes water from Uwharrie National Forest.
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

132

William B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama

William B. Bankhead National Forest and public water system intakes receiving

more than 5% annual water supply from William B. Bankhead National Forest
A P P E N D I X

133

William B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama

Public water system intakes receiving water from William B. Bankhead National Forest (1 of 3 pages)

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

William B. 

Bankhead NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

1 ARLEY WATER WORKS AL 7872 589 63.8% 63.8%

2 BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS 

BOARD 1 of 2 AL 147811 3232 12.6% 12.7%

3 BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS 

BOARD 2 of 2 AL 147811 1700 24.0% 24.1%

4 CHEROKEE WATER & GAS 

DEPARTMENT AL 2250 44314 0.1% 10.6%

5 COKER WATER AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 1890 7420 5.5% 5.5%

6 COKER WATER AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 1890 7420 5.5% 5.5%

7 COLBERT COUNTY RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM AL 10731 44212 0.1% 10.6%

8 DECATUR (MUNICIPAL 

UTILITIES BOARD OF) AL 77100 37761 0.1% 12.4%

9 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 AL 16725 43317 0.1% 10.8%

10 FLORENCE WATERWASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 AL 16725 43317 0.1% 10.8%

11 GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY 

SERVICE CORPORATION AL 32 6134 6.7% 6.7%

12 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 1 of 2 AL 3855 43317 0.1% 10.8%

13 GREENHILL WATER & FIRE 

PRO AUTHORITY 2 of 2 AL 3855 43317 0.1% 10.8%

14 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 1 of 2 AL 3801 28701 1.4% 2.4%

15 JACKSON WATER WORKS & 

SEWER BOARD 2 of 2 AL 3801 28701 1.4% 2.4%

16

JASPER WATER WORKS AND 

SEWER BOARD AL 29700 3163 12.9% 13.0%

17

LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER 

SYSTEM AL 14625 37954 0.1% 12.3%

18

RED BAY WATER & GAS 

BOARD 1 of 4 AL 1200 484 2.2% 2.2%

19

RED BAY WATER & GAS 

BOARD 2 of 4 AL 1200 484 2.2% 2.2%

20

RED BAY WATER & GAS 

BOARD 3 of 4 AL 1200 484 2.2% 2.2%

21

RED BAY WATER & GAS 

BOARD 4 of 4 AL 1200 484 2.2% 2.2%

22

SHEFFIELD UTILITIES 

DEPARTMENT AL 14574 44212 0.1% 10.6%

23

SPANISH FORT WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2688 61870 0.7% 3.1%

24

UPPER BEAR CREEK WATER 

AUTHORITY AL 32 297 3.6% 3.6%

25

WARRIOR RIVER WATER 

AUTHORITY AL 8625 6134 6.7% 6.7%

26

WEST MORGAN-EAST 

LAWRENCE WATER AUTHORIT AL 26130 38088 0.1% 12.3%

27

WISE ALLOYS LLC WATER 

SYSTEM AL 2400 43317 0.1% 10.8%

(Continued)
Role of National Forest System Lands in Providing Water for the Southern United States

134

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

William B. 

Bankhead NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

28 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 1 of 5 KY 8002 297480 < 0.05% 4.2%

29 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 2 of 5 KY 8002 57986 0.1% 8.3%

30 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 3 of 5 KY 8002 57986 0.1% 8.3%

31 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 4 of 5 KY 8002 57986 0.1% 8.3%

32 PADUCAH WATER WORKS 5 of 5 KY 8002 57986 0.1% 8.3%

33 US ENRICHMENT CORP KY 2000 297846 < 0.05% 4.2%

34

BELLE CHASSE WATER 

DISTRICT LA 17391 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

35 DALCOUR WATERWORKS DIST LA 2666 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

36 DOMINO SUGAR LA 360 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

37 DOW USA, LA DIVISION LA 3960 772171 < 0.05% 4.9%

38 E JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 1 LA 308362 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

39 FERRIDAY TOWN OF LA 3698 768605 < 0.05% 4.9%

40 GRAMERCY WATERWORKS LA 2800 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

41 GRETNA WATERWORKS LA 17500 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

42 LUTCHER WATERWORKS LA 4781 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

43

MARATHON PETROLEUM 

COMPANY LLC LA 817 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

44 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 1 of 2 LA 29120 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

45 NEW ORLEANS ALGIERS WW 2 of 2 LA 29120 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

46

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 1 of 2 LA 214000 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

47

NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON 

WW 2 of 2 LA 214000 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

48 NORANDA ALUMINA, LLC LA 500 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

49 ORMET CORPORATION LA 65 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

50 POINTE A LA HACHE W S LA 1400 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

51 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 1 of 2 LA 4461 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

52 PORT SULPHUR WATER DIST 2 of 2 LA 4461 772439 < 0.05% 4.9%

53 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY LA 675 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

54

ST BERNARD PAR 

WATERWORK LA 33000 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

55

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 1 

EB LA 29517 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

56

ST CHARLES WATER DIST NO 2 

WB LA 31485 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

57 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 1 LA 6120 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

58 ST JAMES WATER DIST NO 2 LA 9000 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

59 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 1 LA 14670 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

60 ST JOHN WATER DIST NO 2 LA 3702 772276 < 0.05% 4.9%

61 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 1 of 2 LA 104986 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

62 W JEFFERSON WW DIST NO 2 2 of 2 LA 104986 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

William B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from William B. Bankhead National Forest (2 of 3 pages)

(Continued)
A P P E N D I X

135

Total surface water

Intake 

ID

Public Water System 

name

Intake 

number 

for system State

Population 

served by intake

Volume 

available to 

intake

Percent from 

William B. 

Bankhead NF

only

Percent 

from all NFS

landsa

millions m3/year

63 WESTWEGO WATERWORKS LA 8534 772387 < 0.05% 4.9%

64

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 1 of 2 MS 533 46483 0.1% 10.1%

65

SHORT COLEMAN PARK-NASA 

PLANT 2 of 2 MS 533 46104 0.1% 10.2%

66 TOWN OF TISHOMINGO MS 810 552 1.9% 1.9%

67 CAMDEN WATER DEPT TN 9667 54825 0.1% 8.6%

68 CLIFTON WATER DEPT TN 3830 48327 0.1% 9.7%

69

E.I. DUPONT, NEW 

JOHNSONVILLE TN 750 54912 0.1% 8.5%

70 FAT DADDY'S MARINA TN 34 56365 0.1% 8.3%

71

FIRST U.D. OF HARDIN 

COUNTY TN 6669 46483 0.1% 10.1%

72

NEW JOHNSONVILLE WATER 

DEPT TN 2602 49156 0.1% 9.5%

73

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 1 of 2 TN 2038 49156 0.1% 9.5%

74

PARSONS WATER 

DEPARTMENT 2 of 2 TN 2038 49156 0.1% 9.5%

75

WAVERLY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TN 1935 54825 0.1% 8.6%

a This percentage includes water from William B. Bankhead National Forest.

William B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama

(Continued) Public water system intakes receiving water from William B. Bankhead National Forest (3 of 3 pages)

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback or 

go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval

Caldwell, P.; Muldoon, C.; Ford Miniat, C. [and others]. 2014. Quantifying the role of National 

Forest System lands in providing surface drinking water supply for the Southern United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-197. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 135 p.

Forests and water are inextricably linked, and people are dependent on forested lands to provide 

clean, reliable water supplies for drinking and to support local economies. These water supplies are 

at risk of degradation from a growing population, continued conversion of forests to other land uses, 

and climate change. Given the variety of threats to surface water, it is important for forest managers to 

know how much of the drinking water supply originates in forests they manage and what populations 

and communities are served by that water. In this analysis, we used a hydrologic model, Water Supply 

Stress Index (WaSSI), and a database of surface water intakes to quantify the extent to which people 

depend on surface water from USDA Forest Service National Forest System (NFS) lands and State 

and private forest lands in the South. We computed the water yield for NFS lands in addition to other 

land cover types, and accumulated and tracked water from NFS and State and private forest lands 

through the river network. We then estimated the population served by water from NFS lands across 

the South using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act database of 

drinking water intakes. We estimated that NFS lands contributed 3.4 percent and State and private 

forest lands 32.4 percent of the approximately 900 million m3/year of total surface water supply in 

the region. Of the 6,724 public surface water intakes in the South, 1,541 intakes serving 19.0 million 

people receive some water from all NFS lands in and upstream of the 13 Southern States. Of the 1,541 

intakes, 427 received more than 20 percent of their water from NFS lands and served 3.2 million 

people. Similarly, 6,188 intakes serving 48.7 million people receive some water from State and private 

forest lands. Of the 6,188 intakes, 3,143 received more than 20 percent of their water from State and 

private forest lands and served 29.0 million people. These results highlight the importance of southern 

forests in providing clean and dependable water supplies to downstream communities. While 

environmental and economic factors are likely to interact and cause changes in water availability and 

quality, forest conservation and proper management can help mitigate these effects. 

Keywords: drinking water, hydrologic modeling, National Forest System, State and private forest 

lands, WaSSI, water supply.

Please direct questions and/or comments regarding 

the content of this publication to the coresponding author, 

Peter Caldwell at pcaldwell02@fs.fed.us.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).