Laserfiche WebLink
Artificial filters are desirable when the aquifer has a Water Well Drillers' Reports <br /> "uniformity coefficient"f of less than 2.5 (some authorities <br /> recommend a value of less than 3), or in poorly consolidated Detailed and comprehensive knowledge of the occur- <br /> rock, i.e., rock that tends to cave when pumping occurs. rence and quality of California's ground water resources is <br /> vital to protecting, conserving, and properly developing <br /> Detailed information on the design of intake them. The data obtained during the construction of water <br /> sections, including the selection of well screen aperture wells are primary sources of geologic and hydrologic informa- <br /> openings and artificial filter materials, will be found in tion. In 1949 the Legislature concluded that such informa- <br /> most publications dealing with ground water and water wells, tion would be invaluable in the event of underground <br /> a number of which are listed in Appendix E. pollution, and would provide a fund of geologic information <br /> regarding the State's ground water resources. As a result, <br /> Incomplete Development. Well construction causes legislation was passed requiring the filing of a report with <br /> compaction of unconsolidated material about the walls of the the Department. The report is called the Water Well Drillers' <br /> drilled hole and drilling fluid also invades these walls, Report and its submittal is also a requirement of these <br /> forming a mud cake. In consolidated rocks, cuttings, fine standards (see Chapter II, Section 7 "Reports"). Additional <br /> particles and mud can be forced into joints and fractures. information about the report is presented in "Guide to the <br /> Thus, the borehole walls become clogged reducing the Preparation of the Water Well Drillers' Report", Department <br /> potential yield and causing the drawdown to be increased. of Water Resources, October 1977. <br /> Proper well development breaks down the compacted walls (or <br /> opens fractures) and draws the material into the well where Comments and Public Hearings on Draft Edition <br /> it can be removed. Obviously,the more thorough the develop- <br /> ment the better the well will perform. Adequacy of develop- Where a publication is of general interest or its <br /> ment is largely a matter of experience and judgment. The subject is one on which there can be a diversity of opinion, <br /> success of development can be measured by the amount of sand it is the policy of the Department of Water Resources to <br /> produced during interrupted pumping and the final specific issue it in preliminary form and solicit comments from <br /> capacity of the well. interested organizations and individuals and the general <br /> public. Since the standards for the construction of wells <br /> Testing for Sand. The sand content should be and the destruction of abandoned wells recommended herein are <br /> tested after evelopment and performance (pump) testing. for application throughout the State, and because they are <br /> Sand production should be measured by a centrifugal sand specified by many counties and cities (in ordinances or <br /> sampled or other acceptable means. Following development regulations),. a draft edition was prepared and distributed for <br /> (i.e., stabilization of the formation and/or gravel pack) comment (April 14, 1981). In addition, four public hearings <br /> and pump testing, the sand content should not exceed a or meetings (of an informal nature) were held to obtain the <br /> concentration of 5 ppm (parts per million) by weight views of persons interested in, or concerned with, the <br /> 15 minutes after the start of pumping. construction and use of water wells. These hearings were <br /> conducted in cooperation with the Department of Health <br /> Sand production exceeding this limit indicates that Services represented by its Sanitary Engineering Section <br /> the well may not be completely developed or may not have been since this report contains provisions which pertain to the <br /> properly designed. In that event, redevelopment may be public health aspects of water well construction. The hear- <br /> appropriate or as an alternative, a sand separator installed. ings were held during June 1981 at Berkeley, Fresno, Redding <br /> In existing wells should this value be exceeded significantly, and Los Angeles. In response to a number of requests, the <br /> rehabilitation (redevelopment) or repair is probably needed. comment period was extended to September 1981. <br /> Again, as an alternative, a sand separator may need to be <br /> installed. Fifty-five persons representing 33 individuals and <br /> organizations attended the four hearings. Five formal <br /> (written) statements were presented and 16 persons commented <br /> verbally. In addition, written comments were received from <br /> 1 The uniformity coefficient is a ratio that describes the 33 other organizations and individuals. Those submitting I <br /> variation in grain size of granular aquifer material. It written comments are listed in Table 5. Copies of the <br /> is defined as the ratio of the particle size of a material written comments are available for inspection in the <br /> at which 60 percent of the particles are finer and Department's file in Sacramento. <br /> 40 percent are coarser (called D ) to the "effective" <br /> grain size (i.e., the particle si9e of the material at All comments were carefully reviewed and considered. <br /> which ten percent of the particles are finer and 90 percent As might be expected, opinions differed on the applicability <br /> are coarser) (D ). The value of the uniformity coeffi- of certain standards, guidelines, and procedures. There is, <br /> cient for a matggial of one grain size is unity; for a of course, some validity in each point-of-view, which forms <br /> heterogeneous sand it might be 30. the basis for reconsideration. Many comments were incorpo- <br /> Such a device is described in the Journal of the American rated in this final draft. Others were not used for various <br /> Water Works Association, Volume 46, No. 2, February 1954. reasons. Most of the comments dealt mainly with (1) the <br />