← Basin groundwater

KRISTOVICH

Monitored well · 150640 · 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 ↗

Unclassified

No aquifer or designated-basin assignment — administrative world unknown, kept out of recharge math.

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 2016-01-20 (gamma, resistivity, spontaneous_potential). DWR's log page.

Curves digitized from the scan

Hydrohistorian traced the scanned log automatically. 1 curve passed the confidence gate; 8 did not and are listed with the reason. Screening data: the scan stays the record.

CurveInterval ftCoverageVerdict Curves like this one scored
64" Normal Resistivity (Okam-m) 10–1213 96% not used: ambiguous rows 28%
Single-Point Resistance (Okams) 10–1213 95% pass r 0.99 median, error 0.6% of scale, 6% below r 0.8 (n 49) LAS
Spontaneous Potential (mV) 10–1213 98% not used: SP: the printed scale is a span with an unknown offset, and the benchmark could not verify the shape (median r 0.28 after offset removal)
Ohms (Ohms) 10–143 68% not used: ambiguous rows 56%; curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'
Ohms (Ohms) 160–347 96% not used: ambiguous rows 40%; curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'
Ohms (Ohms) 360–551 88% not used: curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'
Ohms (Ohms) 560–755 82% not used: curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'
Ohms (Ohms) 760–959 88% not used: curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'
Ohms (Ohms) 959–1163 88% not used: curve name not recognized: 'Ohms'

"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

Total depth1230.0 ft
Perforated interval880.0–1240.0 ft
Ground elevation5960.0 ft
Permit78741
Location39.54000, -104.47000
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.