Skip to main content
LakeQuality

Lake Walter F. George carries nutrient and algae readings on record. Within 30 miles, 1 lake reads lower. Geoh Lake (Stewart County, Grade B, 13.7 mi away) is the closest meaningful upgrade.

Reviewed by LakeQuality Editorial Team · Updated
1

Geoh Lake

Stewart County, Georgia · 13.7 mi from Lake Walter F. George
  • +Higher grade (C → B)

Reading the cohort

Just one nearby water body scores higher than Lake Walter F. George on the EPA metrics within a 30-mile radius. The single cleaner option (below) is the practical alternative; beyond that, the next-cleanest lakes sit farther out and warrant a longer drive only if the water-quality difference is the deciding factor.

Geoh Lake (Stewart County) is the closest cleaner option at 13.7 miles from Lake Walter F. George: close enough to be a genuine substitute for most users, far enough that it isn't the same neighborhood lake. Worth the trip if water quality is the primary driver; less obvious if Lake Walter F. George is on the way to other plans.

Each lake's nutrient and algae readings — total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, and turbidity — are shown beside the EPA National Lakes Assessment 2022 condition class for that lake's own ecoregion, so a reading is compared against the lakes it would naturally resemble. LakeQuality publishes no letter grade. Lower readings mean measurably less nutrient and algae in the water, not better scenery or access: the lake with the clearest, lowest-nutrient water can have worse boat-launch facilities or shoreline access than a neighbor, so the comparison is one input alongside the rest of trip planning. How the readings are classified is on our methodology page.

How this list is built

Sampled lakes on LakeQuality carry readings from EPA Water Quality Portal samples — nutrients and algae measured against EPA National Lakes Assessment ecoregion classes. Secchi is shown, not scored. To suggest cleaner alternatives, we filter lakes within 30 miles to those with a strictly higher numeric score, then rank by the size of the improvement with a small proximity tiebreak. Cross-state and limited-data lakes are excluded so the list stays locally relevant.