Hydrohistorian
PROSPECT VALLEY DAIRY
Monitored well · 149987 · Division 1 · Water District 1
Its well permit here · Well permit at DWR ↗
Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR well record ↗ Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR permit record ↗
High Plains / Ogallala
Effectively non-recharging in eastern Colorado; declines are storage depletion, a separate ledger line.
Because this aquifer does not recharge on a human timescale, a decline here is storage being removed, not a stream being short. It is kept out of the stream-depletion math for that reason.
Water-level record
No water-level measurements are cached for this well. It is in the well inventory — permit, construction and aquifer below — but nobody has logged a level we hold.
Geophysical log
DWR holds a geophysical log for this well, run 2012-06-27 (spontaneous_potential). DWR's log page.
Formation picks (DWR)
| Aquifer | Top ft | Base ft | Net sand ft |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALLUVIAL | 0 | 43 | |
| LARAMIE-FOX HILLS | 290 | 644 | 155 |
Net sand is DWR's own reading of the log (its gLogThickness), not the gross interval.
Curves digitized from the scan
Hydrohistorian traced the scanned log automatically. 1 curve passed the confidence gate; 2 did not and are listed with the reason. Screening data: the scan stays the record.
| Curve | Interval ft | Coverage | Verdict | Curves like this one scored | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16" Normal Resistivity (Ohum-m) | 2–686 | 97% | not used: ambiguous rows 28% | ||
| Natural Gamma (CPS) | 2–686 | 97% | not used: ambiguous rows 8% | ||
| Single-Point Resistance (Olum) | 2–686 | 87% | pass | r 0.99 median, error 0.6% of scale, 6% below r 0.8 (n 49) | LAS |
"Curves like this one" is the benchmark row for this curve's class: curves of the same name traced the same way, scored against DWR's own digital log of the same run. r is correlation (the print's own smoothing allowed for); error is mean absolute error as a share of the track's printed range; "below r 0.8" is the share of passing curves in the class that still disagreed with DWR's log, which this curve's own numbers cannot rule out.
The LAS files and every verdict are in the statewide groundwater release
(/data, table gw_digitized); the MCP server's gw_digitized_curves and
gw_net_sand work from them. How well the tracer does was
measured against DWR's own digital logs.
The well itself
| Designated basin | LOST CREEK |
|---|---|
| Total depth | 660.0 ft |
| Perforated interval | 408.0–660.0 ft |
| Ground elevation | 4790.0 ft |
| Permit | 76130 |
| Location | 40.12000, -104.44000 |
What this page is not
Monitoring records are irregular: measurements cluster where somebody chose to look, so a trend describes this well's record, not the aquifer as a whole. Levels are DWR's published measurements, unedited. A trend here is not a prediction, and it is not a determination about anyone's water right.