← Basin groundwater

RASURE LEY

Monitored well · 152118 · Division 1 · Water District 8

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 2017-11-14 (gamma, resistivity, spontaneous_potential). DWR's log page.

Formation picks (DWR)

AquiferTop ftBase ftNet sand ft
LOWER DAWSON614 119
UPPER DAWSON 502 234

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. 2 curves passed the confidence gate; 2 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 (Ohm-m) 10–976 95% not used: ambiguous rows 42%; scale OCR confidence 0.66
Natural Gamma (CPS) 10–976 98% pass r 0.99 median, error 3.3% of scale, 3% below r 0.8 (n 89) LAS
Single-Point Resistance (Ohms) 10–976 94% pass r 0.99 median, error 0.6% of scale, 6% below r 0.8 (n 49) LAS
Spontaneous Potential (mV) 10–976 93% 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)

"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 depth958.0 ft
Perforated interval659.0–959.0 ft
Ground elevation6620.0 ft
Permit81131
Location39.44000, -104.87000
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.