Laserfiche WebLink
provided by the State. Water districts were chosen that had relatively few additional records. The <br />additional records were identified and deleted from the report produced by watright. The two data <br />files were loaded into temporary working tables in the database and SQL scripts were run to compare <br />the information. Approximately 80 man-hours were spent checking 7 percent of the water rights <br />records using this logic. <br />3.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS <br />The information in the report produced by watright matched the information contained in the report <br />provided by the State with a few exceptions. These exceptions are listed below: <br />The order in which the use codes are listed (example: SDI instead of ISD [Attachment 1]) <br />? <br /> <br />The order in which the water right transactions for a given water right are listed <br />? <br />(Attachment 1) <br /> <br />The stream name under which a water right is listed (This exception exists because stream <br />? <br />names have now been defined within the CRDSS database that were previously defined as <br />null values. Please note that the stream numbers remained the same for a given water <br />right.) <br /> <br />Modified water right names (example: Spring #1 changed to Spring No. 1) <br />? <br /> <br />The order in which the structure types are listed (example: LD instead of DL) <br />? <br /> <br />Updated comment fields <br />? <br />Examples of some of these exceptions are attached. <br />3 <br />a320/taskmems/ 2-07-0.doc 01/03/97 <br />