← Basin groundwater

HAMMANN WELL

Monitored well · 157475 · Division 2 · Water District 10

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 (DWR's code: <NA>). DWR's log page.

Curves digitized from the scan

Hydrohistorian traced the scanned log automatically. 1 curve passed the confidence gate; 14 did not and are listed with the reason. Screening data: the scan stays the record.

CurveInterval ftCoverageVerdict Curves like this one scored
OHM (OHM) 6–169 100% not used: ambiguous rows 36%; curve name not recognized: 'OHM'
OHMM (OHMM) 6–169 14% not used: coverage 15%; ambiguous rows 26%; curve name not recognized: 'OHMM'
mV (mV) 6–169 4% not used: coverage 5%; ambiguous rows 19%; curve name not recognized: 'mV'
OHM (OHM) 180–389 100% not used: ambiguous rows 25%; curve name not recognized: 'OHM'
OHMM (OHMM) 180–389 10% not used: coverage 10%; ambiguous rows 39%; curve name not recognized: 'OHMM'
mV (mV) 180–389 5% not used: coverage 5%; ambiguous rows 84%; curve name not recognized: 'mV'
OHM (OHM) 400–609 100% not used: ambiguous rows 32%; curve name not recognized: 'OHM'
OHMM (OHMM) 400–609 10% not used: coverage 10%; ambiguous rows 55%; curve name not recognized: 'OHMM'
mV (mV) 400–609 6% not used: coverage 7%; ambiguous rows 62%; curve name not recognized: 'mV'
OHM (OHM) 620–788 93% not used: ambiguous rows 30%; curve name not recognized: 'OHM'
OHMM (OHMM) 620–788 18% not used: coverage 19%; ambiguous rows 63%; curve name not recognized: 'OHMM'
mV (mV) 620–788 12% not used: coverage 13%; ambiguous rows 73%; curve name not recognized: 'mV'
Natural Gamma (CPS) 6–788 66% pass r 0.99 median, error 3.3% of scale, 3% below r 0.8 (n 89) LAS
Single-Point Resistance (OHM) 6–788 5% not used: coverage 5%; ambiguous rows 31%; curve class not verified by the benchmark: Single-Point Resistance traced as thick
Spontaneous Potential (mV) 6–788 97% not used: ambiguous rows 13%; 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

Ground elevation6423.24 ft
Permit88480
Location38.90000, -104.50000
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.