Workflow (Sequence Diagram)
...
Diagram Sequence Steps Detail
1.1
1.2
Julie takes her existing list, contacts NMED to request their list of public water suppliers
She requests from NMENV a list of PWS from NMEENV because of their reporting obligations to EPA (on water quality?) they have a comprehensive list. So I have list of most current systems. Alot are now regionalizing. (i.e. city of las cruces consolidates smaller PWS). Sometimes new PWS are created.
They update list every 7 years.
May not be a superset of waters db but because of the reporting requirement mandates they may have more current info than waters db.
1.3
Creates a compehensive list that is a merge of WATERS and NMED PWS lists. Merges them manually (matching by system name). If not present in WATERS list, then adds entry from NMED list.
2.1
Sends paper survey. Note attempted electronic survey (survey monkey) but response was low. Paper survey get higher response.
2.2
Approximately 30 percent of PWS respondents return the paper survey. Many holes/gaps here in terms of response. Of the PWS respondents who respond, only a handful submit associated diversion data reports.
3.1
Request meter data for PWS respondents from David Anderson (Waters Bureau). In survey , they are supposed to provided meter data .
Note: Julie could make more precise requests for meter records specifically categorized as PWS but casts a wider net to get all data because some records are not so obviously classified as a PWS. She then filters manually for those meter entries that are not labeled clearly as a PWS. Some are categorized with other labels yet are PWS.
(Note she doesn’t update waters db with newer meter data from survey if found. Someone else does that)
3.2
Comparison is between meter data returned from the Waters Bureau and the PWS survey respondent data. A reconciliation with what meter data is in Waters DB vs survey is performed (QA/QC). In cases where the PWS did not return the survey, meter data for that PWS is used from Waters Bureau data records to fill the gaps.
Comparison is in conjunction with information returned from waters bureau and the survey respondent information.
Note: Some data element values may require review for cases like data value may seem out of bounds from other values or significant change from previous survey.
3.3
Survey also asks for diversion data.
They will submit report of diversion data (what workflow is this?) and may also submit same diversion data as part of the survey.
Note: one way or another Julie get diversion data. Via survey or as a requirement of their permit which is entered into the Waters DB (some must report diversion data by permit requirement, but not all)
3.4
District offices also familiar with public water suppliers
They also receive meter reading data (paper or online, which is NOT part of Julie’s workflow to request the same as part of the survey)
5.1
Gallons per capita per day (GPCD)
Water Conservation Bureau has a GPCD calculator.
Public water data -> GPCD calculator → Output (let’s public water system track how much water is being used by their customers)
where…
Public water data (input) - Data related to quantifying and tracking water use associated with a distribution system
Output - The output factor gives her an amount water used by the PWS. This number can be compared to the survey or WATERs query results.
The output is used to estimate future demand
Waters Data Report Data Elements
The following dictionary describes the data elements used in report generated by Emily
basin | Basin | Ground Water Basin |
nbr | number | Permit Number |
suffix | suffix |
|
sub_basin | Sub basin | Further identifies the basin that well is located (Example well located in the Rio Grande Basin located in the Middle Rio Grande area) |
sum_rec_nbr | Sum record number |
|
pod_basin | pod basin | Basin of POD Diversion |
pod_nbr | pod number | POD is sometimes has a different number. I don't know why. This is a water rights question. |
pod_suffix | pod suffix | If more than on well is assigned to a permit this identifies which well it is |
pod_rec_nbr | pod record number |
|
own_lname | owner last name |
|
own_fname | owner first name |
|
use | Use | Use permit was issued for (example Ag, Commercial, Subdivision, etc) |
tws | township | PLSS location data of well |
rng | range | PLSS location data of well |
sec | section | PLSS location data of well |
qtr_4th | quarter | PLSS location data of well |
qtr_16th | quarter | PLSS location data of well |
qtr_64th | quarter | PLSS location data of well |
utm_zone | UTM Zone | PLSS location data of well |
easting | Easting | X Y coordinates |
northing | Northing | X Y coordinates |
mtr_rec_nbr | Meter Record number | |
acct_year | Accounting year | |
ytd_mtr_amt | Year to date meter amount | |
own_end_date | Owner end date | |
Other Information/Questions
what pieces of this could be automated?
Julie thinks they could work with NMED to do unique identifiers for systems
may make use of federal numbers. that way identifier data linked
Daniel Ramirez is a new person on SIDWIS DB
OSE received a USGS grant for service boundaries for all suppliers in the state
Could start to work with Daniel on that
Daniel assigns ID numbers