Ground Water Information Center | MBMG Data Center
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Montana Tech of The University of Montana
1300 West Park Street - Natural Resources Building Room 329
Butte Montana 59701-8997
Ph: (406) 496-4336 Fx: (406) 496-4343
6/28/2017
| Home | Well Data | Reports | DrillerWeb | DNRC | Help! |

The following tables summarize the survey responses received by GWIC between November 12th and December 17th, 2010.

To view the responses for an individual customer group, click on the group's hyperlinked customer type. To redisplay all groups, click Show All.


Tabular View | Survey View | Graphical View


Customer Types
Customer Type Surveys % Chart
Commercial 1 1 %
Consultant 50 33 %
Driller 12 8 %
Education (Student) 1 1 %
Education (Teacher) 0 0 %  
Government (County) 9 6 %
Government (State) 22 14 %
Government (Federal) 6 4 %
Industrial 0 0 %  
NRIS 0 0 %  
Public/Landowner 6 4 %
Realtor 26 17 %
Surveyor 4 3 %
Not Reported 10 7 %
Show All 152 100%  

 

1. In the past year how often have you used the GWIC website?
Response Chart Count %
1-4 times 14 9.27%
Monthly 49 32.45%
Weekly 44 29.14%
2-4 times a week 33 21.85%
Daily 11 7.28%
Total Responses   151 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

2. How often does the website meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
None of the time   0 0.00%
Some of the time 3 1.99%
Average 15 9.93%
Often 105 69.54%
Always 28 18.54%
Total Responses   151 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

3. How easy is the website to use?
Response Chart Count %
Very Hard 1 0.66%
Medium Hard 18 11.92%
Medium Easy 63 41.72%
Very Easy 69 45.70%
Total Responses   151 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

4. How do you value our website service?
Response Chart Count %
No value   0 0.00%
Little value   0 0.00%
Moderate value 6 4.11%
Significant value 67 45.89%
Critical value 73 50.00%
Total Responses   146 100.00%
Did Not Respond   6  

5. How would the loss of GWIC service impact you?
Response Chart Count %
No impact   0 0.00%
Little impact 1 0.67%
Moderate impact 11 7.38%
Significant impact 62 41.61%
Critical impact 75 50.34%
Total Responses   149 100.00%
Did Not Respond   3  

6. How important is it that GWIC data be up to date?
Response Chart Count %
No importance   0 0.00%
Little importance   0 0.00%
Moderate importance 17 11.49%
Significant importance 68 45.95%
Critical importance 63 42.57%
Total Responses   148 100.00%
Did Not Respond   4  

7. How useful are GWIC data in determing drilling depths?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 0.75%
Rarely 5 3.73%
Generally 33 24.63%
Often 68 50.75%
Always 27 20.15%
Total Responses   134 100.00%
Did Not Respond   18  

8. How useful are GWIC data in completing property sales?
Response Chart Count %
Never 8 11.43%
Rarely 7 10.00%
Generally 18 25.71%
Often 25 35.71%
Always 12 17.14%
Total Responses   70 100.00%
Did Not Respond   82  

9. How useful are GWIC data in dealing with land subdivision issues?
Response Chart Count %
Never 4 4.30%
Rarely 5 5.38%
Generally 13 13.98%
Often 43 46.24%
Always 28 30.11%
Total Responses   93 100.00%
Did Not Respond   59  

10. How useful are GWIC data in completing your ground-water research?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 9 6.16%
Often 86 58.90%
Always 51 34.93%
Total Responses   146 100.00%
Did Not Respond   6  

11. If you make ground-water management decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 1.37%
Rarely 3 4.11%
Generally 17 23.29%
Often 41 56.16%
Always 11 15.07%
Total Responses   73 100.00%
Did Not Respond   79  

12. If you make ground-water development decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 1.32%
Rarely 2 2.63%
Generally 19 25.00%
Often 39 51.32%
Always 15 19.74%
Total Responses   76 100.00%
Did Not Respond   76  

13. If you make ground-water protection decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 1.25%
Rarely 5 6.25%
Generally 17 21.25%
Often 38 47.50%
Always 19 23.75%
Total Responses   80 100.00%
Did Not Respond   72  

14. Does internet access to GWIC data save you money?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 0.74%
Rarely 1 0.74%
Generally 17 12.59%
Often 41 30.37%
Always 75 55.56%
Total Responses   135 100.00%
Did Not Respond   17  

15. Is access to GWIC data worth the cost to the taxpayer to provide it?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 2 1.42%
Generally 7 4.96%
Often 30 21.28%
Always 102 72.34%
Total Responses   141 100.00%
Did Not Respond   11  

16. Each time you login, access to GWIC provides an estimated economic benefit of...?
* ($ 162.39 / session)
Response Chart Count %
Less than $10 13 14.13%
Between $10 and $100 45 48.91%
Between $101 and $400 28 30.43%
Between $401 and $1000 3 3.26%
Greater than $1000 3 3.26%
Total Responses   92 100.00%
Did Not Respond   60  

* Economic benefit is calculated using a weighted average of responses given. Values assigned per catagory are: (<$10) = $5; ($10-$100) = $55; ($101-$400) = $250; ($401-$1000) = $700; (>$1000) = $1100.


17. How valuable are long-term water-level monitoring records (hydrographs etc.)?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 16 13.68%
Generally 32 27.35%
Often 37 31.62%
Always 32 27.35%
Total Responses   117 100.00%
Did Not Respond   35  

18. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization Program and MBMG Projects data reports meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 2 2.08%
Rarely meets 10 10.42%
Generally meets 27 28.13%
Often meets 48 50.00%
Always meets 9 9.38%
Total Responses   96 100.00%
Did Not Respond   56  

19. How often do Ground-Water Characterization maps meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 3 3.49%
Rarely meets 17 19.77%
Generally meets 30 34.88%
Often meets 31 36.05%
Always meets 5 5.81%
Total Responses   86 100.00%
Did Not Respond   66  

 

Comments

  • THIS IS A VITAL SERVICE I USE ALL THE TIME AND HAVE FOR YEARS IN BOTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PERMITTING AND TEH DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
  • KEEP UP THE PROGRAM. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO OTHER DATA SOURCE THAT KEEPS THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE. A VERY GOOD AND TIMELY SERVICE.
  • WOULD STILL LIKE TO ENTER WELL ABANDONEMENTS ON GWIC LIKE OUR WELL LOGS. HAS ANYONE FOUND A FORM FOR WELL ABANDONMENTS?
  • I AM THE OWNER OF A REAL ESTATE RESEARCH AND MAPPING BUSINESS, LOCATED IN HAMILTON MONTANA AND FIND THE GWIC DATA BASE A VERY USEFULL TOOL IN HELPING THE PUBLIC FILE FOR EXISTING WELLS AND DOCUMENTING WELL LOG HISTORIES. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
  • THIS SERVICE SAVES ME AND MY STAFF CONSIDERABLE TIME, AND THEREFORE, SAVES OUR CLIENTS THE COSTS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING TO GO TO THE WATER RIGHTS BUREAU TO RESEARCH WELL LOGS. I'M SURE IT ALSO SAVES THE REGULATORY STAFFS OF VARIOUS AGENCIES MUCH TIME AND, THEREFORE, TAX MONEY.
  • THE ACT OF CHANGING THE PORTION OF THE SECTION (FOR WELL LOCATION) FROM A WIDELY USED STANDARD (SUCH AS NW1/4) TO AN A B C D DESIGNATOR IS VERY CONFUSING, VERY TIME CONSUMING, AND CREATES A HUGE NUMBER OF ERRORS IN YOUR DATA. WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER EVEN THINK OF SUCH A THING? A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO THE LOG WOULD BE OF GREAT VALUE. IF ANYONE IS TO PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS DATABASE IT SHOULD NOT BE THE USER. IF IT WERE MAINTAINED BY SOME ENTITY OTHER THAN THE GOVT IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER ORGANIZED AND FAR CHEAPER.
  • IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ASSESS A COST TO THE SERVICE YOU PROVIDE, BECAUSE MAINTAINING THIS DATABASE OF INFORMATION IS SO CRITICAL TO OUR EVERDAY GROUNDWATER EVALUATIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
  • IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AND CURRENTLY IS EXTREAMLY IMPORTANT FOR ANY WATER INFORMATION TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CURRENT LAND OWNER. (NOT JUST ANYONE HELPING). IT WOULD ALSO BE EXTREAMLY VALUABLE TO ALWAYS SOMEHOW MAKE THE LANDOWNER FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION RO RECORD THE DATA - NOT JUST BE GIVEN THIS INFO. & TOLD TO "FILE" IT. DO NOT KNOW HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, BUT WOULD CERTAINLY SAVE EVERYONE TIME AND MONEY IN TRACKING DATA.
  • MBMG EMPLOYEE
  • I USE GWIC ON ALMOST A DAILY BASIS AND FEEL IT IS A VALUABLE SERVICE. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT SOMETIMES I FIND THE ACCURACY OF DATA ENTERED TO BE LACKING, AND THIS INHIBITS MY SEARCHES BY, FOR EXAMPLE, WELL OWNER NAME AND WELL ADDRESS. IF THIS WERE IMPROVED IT WOULD SAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT TO UTILIZE GWIC.
  • ACCURACY OF LAT/LON LOCATIONS ARE MY ONLY COMPLAINT.
  • I ALSO USE THIS SITE TO HELP EDUCATE HOMEOWNERS AND POTENTIAL HOMEOWNERS ABOUT THIER WATER RIGHTS.
  • FOLLOW UP ON CORRECTIONS BETTER, OR CREATE A BETTER WAY TO DO SAME. THANKS.
  • WE'VE ENTERED THE 21ST CENTURY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. ALL PUBLIC DATA SHOULD BE THIS EASY TO OBTAIN.
  • WHEN WE ACCESS WATER WELL DATA, YOUR WEBSITE GIVES US THE OPTION OF PLOTTING THE LOCATION OF A WATER WELL ON A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP. THIS IS EXTREMELY USEFUL, BUT WHEN WE PRINT THE MAP, IT DOES NOT TELL YOU WHICH WATER WELL HAS BEEN PLOTTED. I HAVE TO WRITE EITHER THE WATER WELL NAME OR THE GWIC ID NUMBER, BY HAND, ON THE MAP. IT WOULD HELP IF THE GWIC NUMBER OF THE PLOTTED WELL BE GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY ON THE MAP, OR IN THE MARGIN.
  • I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SEARCH OPTION BE ABLE TO BE FURTHER REFINED DOWN TO QUARTER SECTION... BUT THAT'S THE ONLY REQUEST I CAN THINK OF NOW. GREAT WEBSITE!
  • ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET A GRAVEL MINING PERMIT IN MONTANA IS TO PROVIDE GROUND WATER AND WELL INFORMATION. GWIC IS INVALUABLE IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU CONTINUE IMPROVING YOUR DATABASE OVER TIME. THIS IS ONE GOVERNMENTAL INFORMATION SOURCE THAT PROVIDES VERY USEFUL INFORMATION.
  • PROVIDING A LINK TO SPATIAL MAPPING SITES SUCH AS NRIS MIGHT HELP NEWER USERS. ALSO, IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO QUERY WELLS BY GIS {SEL_ECT} ION. OTHERWISE, THE SITE HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. LUKE AND HIS STAFF ARE VERY RESPONSIVE TO COMMENTS AND HELPFUL WITH GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF DISCREPANCIES.
  • I WOULD HATE TO SEE ACCESS TO GROUND WATER INFORMATION. THE RESULTS FOUND MAY BREAK OR MAKE A DEAL FOR ME. EITHER WAY IT IS A SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE FOR MY CLIENT'S DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
  • I USE GWIC TO FIND WELLS ON PROPERTY THAT A WATER RIGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILE BUT WASN'T. THIS IS USUALLY DONE AS RESEARCH FOR PROPERTY SALES.
  • GREAT RESOURCE, VERY HELPFUL. ONE COMMENT: IT WOULD BE BETTER IF GWIC LOGS PRINTED OUT ON ONE PAGE, INSTEAD OF A TINY PORTION ON A SECOND PAGE WHEN THAT SEEMS UNNECESSARY.
  • YOUR SITE ROCKS: EASY TO USE, COMPREHENSIVE, ETC. THANKS...
  • I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEARCH WELLS IN MULTIPLE TOWNSHIP/RANGES IN ONE SEARCH. THANKS.
  • PLEASE DON'T GET RID OF GWIC, PLEASE DON'T CHARGE (BY INDIVIDUAL USE) FOR IT (COMPANY APPROVAL FOR INTERNET CHARGES IS VERY DIFFICULT). IF FEES ARE TO BE REQUIRED PLEASE MAKE IT AN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. THE PRIMARY DRAWBACK TO THE PROGRAM IS SITE LOCATION ACCURACY. I SUSPECT THIS COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE ENTITY FILLING THE LOG, BUT IT IS TOO COMMON TO FIND A WELL LOG THAT IS OBVIOIUSLY IRRONEOUS IN A SEARCH. ENCOURAGING ACCURATE LOCATION DETERMINATION BY THOSE FILLING LOGS MAY HELP. THANK YOU!
  • IT WOULD COST LOCAL GOVERNMENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IF WE HAD TO EITHER CALL, EMAIL OR ACTUALLY DRIVE TO A DNRC OFFICE TO ACCESS WELL LOGS FOR PLANNING AND SANITATION IN SUBDIVISION ISSUES. I REMEMBER SPENDING HOURS TRYING TO FIND GROUNDWATER AND WELL INFORMATION AT THE DNRC OFFICE IN BOZEMAN.
  • THE GREATEST DIFFICULTLY IN USING THE GWIC DATABASE IS THE LOCATING OF SPECIFIC WELLS WITH HISTORIC MAILING ADDRESSES, ORIGINAL OWNER'S NAME, IMPRECISE LOCATIONS MAKING THE PROCESS DEMANDING AND SOMETIMES IMPOSSIBLE. I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION BUT FIXING THESE ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE WOULD BENEFIT THE USEABILITY OF THE DATABASE.
  • THE ONE PITFALL OF USING GWIC DATA IS THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT MATCH UP A PARTICULAR WELL WITH AN ADDRESS OR A PRECISE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS AN OLDER WELL. WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW IF A GIVEN WELL IN GWIC HAS BEEN FIELD-VERIFIED BY MBMG OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL.
  • CURRENT DRILLER'S LOG DATA IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF PROJECTS. WEB ACCESS BOTH THROUGH MBMG AND THE NRIS SITES IS ALSO A GREAT ADVANTAGE FOR USERS IN MONTANA. I CAN ONLY APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE GWIC. IN ADDITION, MAKING THE GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC MAPS AVAILABLE ONLINE IS AN EXCELLENT SERVICE.
  • ACCURACY OF DATA PRESENTED. SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WELL LOCATION DATA ENTRY ERRORS, OR VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL LOCATION. A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF WELLS VIEWED ON THE GWIC SITE HAVE HAD ERRONEOUS TOWNSHIP RANGE LOCATIONS THAT CAN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF TIME WHEN CONDUCTING FIELD WORK.
  • I ALSO USE GWIC FOR MY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SANITARY SURVEYS. THE INFORMATION IS VALUABLE IN KNOWING WHETHER FULL TIME DISINFECTION IS REQUIRED. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! GO DIGGERS!
  • GWIC IS A CRITICAL TOOL USED IN BY BUSINESS!! THANK YOU GWIC!
  • WE REALLY RELY ON THIS INFORMATION AND CAN'T IMAGINE DOING BUSINESS WITHOUT IT.
  • THE GWIC WEBSITE SHOULD HAVE A DATA BASE THAT COULD BE UPDATED BY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS (DRILLERS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS,ETC.) THAT CAN ASSOCIATE A WELL LOG WITH A RESPECTIVE GEOCODE. I DON'T THINK UPDATING THE DATA BASE IS WORTH SPENDING TAX PAYER DOLLARS ON.
  • THIS PROGRAM IS CRITICAL TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA.
  • SOMETIMES THE WELL INFO IS LISTED IN THE WRONG TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND SECTION - HOW DO YOU BEST CORRECT THIS INFO?
  • I FIND THE SCANNED DOCUMENTS AND WELL LOGS EXTREMELY USEFUL AS SOMETIMES THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. PLEASE CONTINUE PROVIDING A HIGH QUALITY OF SERVICE.
  • I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SERVICE GWIC PROVIDES NOT ONLY TO OUR OFFICE BUT ALSO TO CALLERS WE ASSIST LOOKING FOR WELL LOG INFORMATION. THESE CALLERS ARE USUALLY PRIVATE CITIZENS LOOKING FOR THEIR WELL INFORMATION AND OFTENTIMES, GWIC IS THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN ACCESS IT IF THE INFORMATION WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH THE WATER RIGHT FILING MATERIALS. IT SEEMS QUITE A FEW OF OUR CUSTOMERS RELY ON GWIC SERVICES AS WELL FOR ESTIMATING POSSIBLE WELL DEPTHS IN THEIR AREA.
  • WATER IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES WE FACE IN MONTANA. I GREW UP ON THE EDGE OF THE BUTTREY PLUME.......GROUND WATER PROTECTION IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE.
  • IF I COULD BECOME MORE FAMILIAR W/ WHAT'S AVAILABLE & HOW TO ACCESS IT, I'D TRUST IT MORE. RIGHT NOW IT'S HUNT & PECK. TRYING TO FIND A SITE OF INTEREST WHICH WAS STUMBLED ON, FOR A SECOND TIME, CAN BE DIFFICULT. A MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF AQUIFERS AND VARIOUS SITES THAT COULD BE CLICKED ON FOR H2O ACCESS/QUALITY SPECIFICS WOULD BE NEET. YOU SEEM TO HAVE DATA ALREADY. STU HEBERT
  • THE SEARCH METHOD FOR OBTAINING DATA IS A BIT CUMBERSOME AT TIMES AND AN INTERACTIVE MAP FEATURE WOULD SPEED UP LOCATION OF DATA RELEVENT TO A PROJECT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE DATA PROVIDED THROUGH GWIC. THE DATA DISTRIBUTED IS PROVIDED BY TAXPAYERS AND THE COST TO OBTAIN THE DATA HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFRAYED BY THE TAXPAYERS DUE TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO FILE THE DATA FOLLOWING WELL CONSTRUCTION. CHARGING FOR ACCESS TO THE DATA WILL SIMPLY REDUCE THE EFFORTS TAKEN TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES AND INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF NON-COMPLIANCE. THE ONE INHERENT DRAWBACK TO THE DATA ARE THE SOURCE. THESE WELL LOGS ARE GENERATED BY DRILLERS OR CONSULTANTS AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE TO VERIFY ACCURACY. IT IS KNOWN THAT SOME DRILLERS POTENTIALLY FALSIFY INFORMATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO CURB COMPETITORS OR INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE WELL TO PASSIVATE THE CLIENTS. FREQUENTLY, THE WELL CAPACITY BASED UPON AIR LIFT IS ERRONEOUS AND EXCEEDS THE TRUE CAPACITY BY A FACTOR OF 2 OR MORE.
  • LOVE USING THIS SITE. ALWAYS LOOKING ON IT FOR ONE THING OR ANOTHER.
  • THANKS FOR YOUR HARD WORK. THE SITE IS VERY VALUABLE TO ME.
  • IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WELL LOGS WERE LINKED OR SEARCHABLE BY ADDRESS SINCE THERE ARE OFTEN SEVERAL WELLS WITHIN A SECTION. I USE THE SITE OFTEN.
  • GROUNDWATER USE/OVERUSE IS GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE CONTROVERSIAL. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL UNAUTHORIZED USE THROUGHOUT WESTERN BASINS. ENOUGH SO THAT VERY SENIOR SURFACE WATER RIGHT HOLDERS ARE BEING VERY ADVERSELY EFFECTED. THIS DATA AND CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF DATA IS CRUCIAL TO FUTURE ADMISTRATION OF WATERSHEDS.
  • GREAT WORK. THANKS.
  • FIRST TIME USE OF THE WEBSITE, WILL SUBMIT COMMENTS IN THE FUTURE.

  •