Wednesday, April 14, 2010
How then is the best way to improve the accuracy of these smaller observation well networks? Is it simply a matter of density? The pundits tell us that all else being equal and with our variability in our aquifer bedrock, it takes approximately 4 times the well density to double our statistical accuracy. Do we use data loggers or continue with annual tape measurements?
Would an index well (or two or three) be a better approach? Theoretically, once the index well is data logged, corrected for barometric influences and has a recovery curve applied so that its full recovery level can be ascertained, just a few of these could more accurately reflect what is actually going on in these smaller areas from year to year - and maybe even one if we choose wisely. But then we have the issue in the short term of comparing new, corrected and massaged data with the existing unmassaged data. And the water users are not keen on one index well replacing the 9 obs we currently have in this specific area.
I'd be interested in hearing from the science community on any other approaches that would be available for consideration - preferably other approaches that have worked in other places.