by William Olsen
After 10 or 15 years working with Unique Well Numbers, first as a grad student at the University of Minnesota, and then as a well inspector for Dakota County, I thought I was beginning to understand them. After 25 years as a well inspector and well data manager, I realized that I still could not explain them very well to other people, so I didn’t quite understand them myself.
Since retiring in 2020, I decided to try to put my thoughts in writing in hopes of making sense of things. The main problem I have focussed on is that of multiple Unique Well Numbers for wells. As you may know, they are strictly not allowed. You may have been told that they violate the very essense of the word ‘Unique’.
But consider this case: You and I know of a well and we have traded information about it for years using the identifier 248671. Periodically, I have asked you for the latest updates on 248671, and you have always given them to me. Then one day, you decided to rename it as 100283. The next time I asked you for the latest greatest on 248671, you told me you didn’t recognize that identifier. You were not even able to just tell me it’s been renamed, because you had completely forgotten the old name. That is a true example from the Minnesota Well Index. https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/mwi/index.xhtml?wellId=0000100283
So, perhaps there is value in remembering the old names? Then how should that be done? What is a good way to think about this? What would we call the old names? Who would choose which names to call new and which old? Would there be rules for choosing? How would that information get out to all of the users? Who are all of the users? Who keeps a list of current well owners? Which users have time or interest to keep their records current? Who has records that can’t be updated? Who has records in deep storage that would need updating? Etc.
It turns out that there is a really simple answer to all of these impossible questions: Keep all of the identifiers and call them all equal. Absolutely equal. It’s a really simple answer, and it’s built on a really simple data model. But it’s a data model that is foreign to most users of Unique Well Numbers, and it doesn’t seem remotely feasible to the old hands.
So I’ve tried to write down why it really ought to be the model we use, and how it can actually work. The goal is to turn the problem of multiple identifiers into the advantage of multiple identifiers. The document is formatted as a pdf and is available at this link.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Jj7osZ5Uesf2Mi2LGvXMoM5WWHNUtxZ?usp=drive_link
Please email me at panibillo@gmail.com if you are unable to access the link, and I will send you a copy.
I would look forward to comments, critiques, or questions. Please direct them to me at panibillo@gmail.com.
MGWA is committed to developing a just, equitable, and inclusive groundwater community. Click on the button below to read MGWA’s full diversity statement.
RSS - Posts