Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Brainstorm ideas to let users know the difference between easter and western water rights #343

Open
amabdallah opened this issue Jan 12, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@amabdallah
Copy link
Contributor

amabdallah commented Jan 12, 2024

It's super exciting that Minnesota agreed to share its water permits and use data through WaDE and WestDAAT.

They requested

There may be some details to go over merging Eastern water law and Western water law information in the same interface, so an end-user is not confused by data labels.

Question How should we address their request?

Ideas I can think of

  1. We have "Water Allocation Type" in the database. What values does it have and how can we use it in the landing page? we probably need it as a filter in westDAAT as well. I think its important we add this filter especially if users are doing analytics on river basins that span eastern and western states.
  2. Should the landing page headline indicate this is an "eastern state." That could be comforting to Minnesota's folks but the label then needs to be dynamic based on the organization name. We need to do that for the site and water right landing pages.
  3. We also could change the card headline color from red to green. That would be a visual difference.
  4. Somewhere we need to add text describing the eastern states' water law vs the western law

@rwjam What do you think? suggestions or comments?

image

@amabdallah amabdallah added the question Further information is requested label Jan 12, 2024
@amabdallah amabdallah moved this to Todo-MappingStatesDataToWaDE2.0 in WaDE_Task_Management_for_2024 Jan 12, 2024
@rwjam rwjam moved this from Todo-MappingStatesDataToWaDE2.0 to Todo-WaDESideProjects in WaDE_Task_Management_for_2024 Jan 16, 2024
@rwjam
Copy link
Member

rwjam commented Jan 17, 2024

Didn't Michele list off a variety of inputs that we could input ourselves? Our WaDE AllocationTypeCV input isn't really being utilized at this time. We could continue to try and store state's native value, then utilize the WaDEname filed to categorize them into pre-determined groups (similar to how we handle ben use), or we could we just manually enter in a value ourselves if not provided.

List of Known AllocationTypeCV Terms I think we can use...

  • Prior Appropriation
  • Riparian
  • etc, etc

I would consider AllocationTypeCV to be separate / different than AllocationLegalStatusCV (which is more about being Active or Inactive)

@amabdallah
Copy link
Contributor Author

amabdallah commented Jan 17, 2024

Correct, for the WaDE term, we need to use one of the below terms as a high-level AllocationTypeCV for each water right. Still, we should share the native state AllocationType which can be more specific

AllocationTypeCV Terms (WaDE Name)

  • Prior-appropriation
  • Riparian
  • Rule of capture (Texas groundwater)
  • Correlative Rights (California groundwater)
  • Reasonable Use (Arizona groundwater outside AMAs) + Nebraska groundwater

@amabdallah amabdallah removed their assignment Jan 17, 2024
@rwjam rwjam moved this from Todo-WaDESideProjects to Todo-WestDAAT / WaDE in WaDE_Task_Management_for_2024 Jan 17, 2024
@rwjam rwjam moved this from Todo-WestDAAT to Conversations to Have / Notes in WaDE_Task_Management_for_2024 Mar 15, 2024
@rwjam rwjam removed their assignment Mar 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
Status: Conversations to Have / Notes
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants