Water Resources Board

Tell us what to change or add.

Your name (optional)Your roleReview date

Continue a saved review

1. Check a decision

Open a decision below. Check the area, period, inputs, result and proposed next step.

2. Try the inputs

Use Example input to change a sample. Use Source input to check the fields and source details. The land-use change decision has its own comparison views.

Record your corrections below, then download your answers or print them.

3. Check each decision

1. Check wells showing sustained drawdown 2. Adjust monitoring to seasonal groundwater variation 3. Check wells exceeding applicable use-specific limits 4. Select groundwater areas needing observation wells 5. Shortlist sites requiring detailed groundwater investigation 6. Refer pumping-test results for safe-abstraction assessment 7. Compare recorded abstraction with reviewed aquifer budgets 8. Check contamination sources near supply wells 9. Choose what to handle first: coastal groundwater salinity investigations 10. Refer industrial groundwater requests for determination 11. Compare managed-recharge alternatives 12. Check groundwater changes around extraction sites 13. Choose what to handle first: rehabilitation of poorly performing wells 14. Clear delayed groundwater laboratory analyses 15. Compare feasible groundwater contingency supplies 16. Review unsuccessful drilling and cost patterns 17. Restore failed groundwater loggers and calibration 18. Prepare permitted groundwater information releases 19. Validate aquifer-model predictions before planning use 20. Resolve inconsistent well identifiers and construction metadata

1. Check wells showing sustained drawdownDEC-DP21-001 · Groundwater depletion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate wells showing sustained drawdown.

Validation required

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate persistent changes, review the operating plan, or extend monitoring.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Groundwater head relative to the stated datum [m]; Datum, pumping state and measurement convention

Other required evidence. Well ID; groundwater level; datum; pumping history; rainfall; observation dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — groundwater depletion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Groundwater head relative to the stated datum	104	m
Datum, pumping state and measurement convention	Sample common head datum; static measurement
Observed value	104	m

Groundwater head and depth below ground have opposite directional meanings. Match datum, pumping state and seasonal context; observed drawdown is not itself a safe-yield estimate.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Trend and uncertainty after action using the same definition.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

2. Adjust monitoring to seasonal groundwater variationDEC-DP21-002 · Seasonal groundwater · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Adjust monitoring to seasonal groundwater variation.

Validation required

Method. Later/comparison value minus Comparable reference value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Comparable reference value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Verify the observation, refer a confirmed exception, or retain it with explanation.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Comparable reference value [m]; Later/comparison value [m]

Other required evidence. Well ID; water levels; season; abstraction; rainfall; comparable baseline.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — seasonal groundwater · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable reference value	100	m
Later/comparison value	90	m
Difference	-10	m
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Validated exceptions, response time and resulting outcome.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

3. Check wells exceeding applicable use-specific limitsDEC-DP21-003 · Groundwater quality · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate wells exceeding applicable use-specific limits.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/L]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/L]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/L]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis

Other required evidence. Well sample; parameter; result; unit; laboratory method; applicable limit.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — groundwater quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Well-water chloride for selected use
Measured result	230	mg/L
Example lower comparison bound	0	mg/L
Example upper comparison bound	200	mg/L
Original and limit unit	mg/L
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	230	mg/L

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. Select groundwater areas needing observation wellsDEC-DP21-004 · Monitoring coverage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select groundwater areas needing observation wells.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [aquifer units]; Distinct members of that frame covered [aquifer units]; Frame members with unknown coverage [aquifer units]

Other required evidence. Aquifer units; existing wells; observation dates; abstraction areas; coverage need.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — monitoring coverage · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	aquifer units
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	aquifer units
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	aquifer units
Verified coverage	65	%
Known uncovered	30	aquifer units
Unknown coverage	5	aquifer units

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

5. Shortlist sites requiring detailed groundwater investigationDEC-DP21-005 · Borehole siting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Shortlist sites requiring detailed groundwater investigation.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Shortlist technically feasible alternatives, reject exclusions, or request site evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Geology; Geology evidence reference; geophysics; geophysics evidence reference; nearby wells; nearby wells evidence reference; demand; demand evidence reference; contamination risks; contamination risks evidence reference; land access; land access evidence reference

Other required evidence. Geology; geophysics; nearby wells; demand; contamination risks; land access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — borehole siting · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Geology	Missing
Geology evidence reference
geophysics	Documented
geophysics evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
nearby wells	Documented
nearby wells evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
demand	Documented
demand evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
contamination risks	Documented
contamination risks evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
land access	Documented
land access evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Field-verified limiting factors and observed performance.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

6. Refer pumping-test results for safe-abstraction assessmentDEC-DP21-006 · Pumping tests · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer pumping-test results for safe-abstraction assessment.

Validation required

Method. Reproduced minus expected result, within an explicitly supplied absolute tolerance, using the same exact input/method versions and a separate checker. Retain originals, code, parameters and environment evidence.

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [m³/day]; Independently reproduced value [m³/day]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m³/day]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Pumping rate; drawdown; recovery; test duration; aquifer model; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — pumping tests · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	m³/day
Independently reproduced value	90	m³/day
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable m³/day measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance	0.01	m³/day
Expected input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Original result creator	Preparation officer
Independent reproducer	Independent checking officer
Difference	-10	m³/day
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

7. Compare recorded abstraction with reviewed aquifer budgetsDEC-DP21-007 · Abstraction balance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare recorded abstraction with reviewed aquifer budgets.

Validation required

Method. Calculated closing = opening + inflows − releases/transfers − other outflows. Residual = independently observed closing − calculated closing.

Next step. Reconcile closing balance. Investigate unexplained balances and propose revised measurement or operating action.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Opening storage [m³]; Recharge and external groundwater inflow [m³]; Abstraction and groundwater outflow [m³]; Other identified non-overlapping water outflow [m³]; Independently observed closing storage [m³]

Other required evidence. Recharge estimate; abstraction; inflows; outflows; storage change; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — abstraction balance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Opening storage	160,000	m³
Recharge and external groundwater inflow	48,000	m³
Abstraction and groundwater outflow	35,000	m³
Other identified non-overlapping water outflow	9,000	m³
Independently observed closing storage	163,500	m³
Calculated closing storage	164,000	m³
Observed minus calculated closing	-500	m³

A storage-change calculation needs a defined aquifer boundary and compatible volume estimates. Groundwater head in metres is not a storage volume; uncertainty and safe-abstraction review remain separate.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Reconciled balance residuals and verified operating results.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

8. Check contamination sources near supply wellsDEC-DP21-008 · Well protection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate contamination sources near supply wells.

Validation required

Method. Display measured separation with hydrogeological direction, source type and the reviewed protection criterion. Distance alone cannot determine contamination, safety or a statutory protection area.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Documented source-to-well separation [m]; Potential contamination source and observation reference; Hydrogeological flow-direction evidence; Use-specific reviewed protection criterion

Other required evidence. Well coordinates; land uses; hazard sources; protection criteria; flow direction.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — well protection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Documented source-to-well separation	150	m
Potential contamination source and observation reference	Sample documented source
Hydrogeological flow-direction evidence	Not provided
Use-specific reviewed protection criterion	Not provided
Documented separation	150	m

Geometry preparation must use matching coordinate systems, dated boundary editions and valid spatial predicates. Overlap supports referral; it does not determine ownership, permission or site safety.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

9. Choose what to handle first: coastal groundwater salinity investigationsDEC-DP21-009 · Saline intrusion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize coastal groundwater salinity investigations.

Validation required

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate persistent changes, review the operating plan, or extend monitoring.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [µS/cm]

Other required evidence. Conductivity; chloride; groundwater head; pumping; location; tidal influence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — saline intrusion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	104	µS/cm
Observed value	104	µS/cm

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Trend and uncertainty after action using the same definition.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

10. Refer industrial groundwater requests for determinationDEC-DP21-010 · Industrial abstraction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer industrial groundwater requests for determination.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Demand; Demand evidence reference; hydrogeological report; hydrogeological report evidence reference; abstraction proposal; abstraction proposal evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; monitoring conditions; monitoring conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Demand; hydrogeological report; abstraction proposal; permits; monitoring conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — industrial abstraction · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Demand	Missing
Demand evidence reference
hydrogeological report	Documented
hydrogeological report evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
abstraction proposal	Documented
abstraction proposal evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permits	Documented
permits evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
monitoring conditions	Documented
monitoring conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

11. Compare managed-recharge alternativesDEC-DP21-011 · Recharge options · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare managed-recharge alternatives.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Site geology; source-water quality; recharge volume; costs; controls; feasibility.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Well rehabilitation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare managed-recharge alternatives; Site geology and source-water quality evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

12. Check groundwater changes around extraction sitesDEC-DP21-012 · Mining impacts · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate groundwater changes around extraction sites.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Method. (Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.

Next step. Supply study-design evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Treatment Groundwater head at common datum before [m]; Treatment Groundwater head at common datum after [m]; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum before [m]; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum after [m]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Mine activity; well levels; water quality; baseline; comparison wells; geology.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mining impacts · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Groundwater head at common datum before	42	m
Treatment Groundwater head at common datum after	59	m
Comparison Groundwater head at common datum before	39	m
Comparison Groundwater head at common datum after	46	m
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Groundwater head at common datum /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	m

The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

13. Choose what to handle first: rehabilitation of poorly performing wellsDEC-DP21-013 · Well rehabilitation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize rehabilitation of poorly performing wells.

Validation required

Method. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.

Next step. Follow up overdue case. Authorize feasible repair through the proper work process, inspect further, or restrict unsafe use.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Received or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed

Other required evidence. Well condition; yield; sand production; failure history; repair options; costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — well rehabilitation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Received or defect observed	2025-04-01
Recorded due date	2025-06-01
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Case/work closed	No
Documented critical unresolved condition	Unknown
Responsible office or maintainer	Proposed responsible office
Actual closure date when closed
Open days past due	29	days
Calendar age	90	days

Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Verified defect closure, service availability and repeat failures.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

14. Clear delayed groundwater laboratory analysesDEC-DP21-014 · Laboratory turnaround · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Clear delayed groundwater laboratory analyses.

Validation required

Method. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.

Next step. Follow up overdue case. Assign the next permitted case, escalate an overdue case, request evidence, or close with proof.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Other required evidence. Sample ID; receipt; required tests; holding time; due date; lab capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — laboratory turnaround · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Received or defect observed	2025-04-01
Recorded due date	2025-06-01
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Case/work closed	No
Documented critical unresolved condition	Unknown
Responsible office or maintainer	Proposed responsible office
Actual closure date when closed
Open days past due	29	days
Calendar age	90	days

Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Response time, aged cases, completion and reopened cases.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

15. Compare feasible groundwater contingency suppliesDEC-DP21-015 · Drought supply · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare feasible groundwater contingency supplies.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Demand; verified yields; water quality; transport; costs; authorized abstraction.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Well rehabilitation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare feasible groundwater contingency supplies; Demand and verified yields evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

16. Review unsuccessful drilling and cost patternsDEC-DP21-016 · Drilling performance · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review unsuccessful drilling and cost patterns.

Validation required

Method. Drilling cost / completed depth. Display tested yield and the stated success definition separately; cost per metre does not determine safe abstraction.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Drilling cost [LKR]; Completed drilled depth [m]; Tested sustainable-yield evidence [L/s]; Outcome under the stated success definition

Other required evidence. Borehole ID; depth; yield; geology; drilling cost; success definition.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — drilling performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Drilling cost	1,800,000	LKR
Completed drilled depth	60	m
Tested sustainable-yield evidence	2.4	L/s
Outcome under the stated success definition	Unknown
Cost per drilled metre	30,000	LKR/m
Reported pumping-test yield	2.4	L/s

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

17. Restore failed groundwater loggers and calibrationDEC-DP21-017 · Monitoring devices · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Restore failed groundwater loggers and calibration.

Validation required

Method. Completeness = 100 × valid / expected. Age = assessment date − latest valid observation; compare with the explicitly supplied interval.

Next step. Check overdue observation. Repair missed observations, contact the owner, or suspend stale evidence from current decisions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Expected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days]

Other required evidence. Logger ID; expected cadence; last valid reading; calibration; power; access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — monitoring devices · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Expected observations in the window	30	observations
Distinct valid observations	24	observations
Latest valid observation	2025-06-28
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Required observation interval	1	days
Completeness	80	%
Age of latest observation	2	days
Missing observations	6	observations

A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Valid observations received on time and recurring gaps.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

18. Prepare permitted groundwater information releasesDEC-DP21-018 · Public evidence · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prepare permitted groundwater information releases.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Grant only scoped authorized access, aggregate/redact, refuse, or request approval.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Dataset; Dataset evidence reference; location sensitivity; location sensitivity evidence reference; ownership; ownership evidence reference; intended use; intended use evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Dataset; location sensitivity; ownership; intended use; license; approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — public evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Dataset	Missing
Dataset evidence reference
location sensitivity	Documented
location sensitivity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ownership	Documented
ownership evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
intended use	Documented
intended use evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
license	Documented
license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval	Documented
approval evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Permitted use, expiry compliance and investigated disclosure incidents.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

19. Validate aquifer-model predictions before planning useDEC-DP21-019 · Aquifer models · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Validate aquifer-model predictions before planning use.

Validation required

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [m]; Independently reproduced value [m]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Model; boundary conditions; pumping; calibration levels; independent validation; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — aquifer models · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	m
Independently reproduced value	90	m
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable m measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance	0.01	m
Expected input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Original result creator	Preparation officer
Independent reproducer	Independent checking officer
Difference	-10	m
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

20. Resolve inconsistent well identifiers and construction metadataDEC-DP21-020 · Well registry · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Resolve inconsistent well identifiers and construction metadata.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Accept a fit source for a defined use, restrict it, or request metadata/schema correction.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Well ID; Well ID evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; depth; depth evidence reference; screen interval; screen interval evidence reference; datum; datum evidence reference; construction date; construction date evidence reference; source; source evidence reference

Other required evidence. Well ID; location; depth; screen interval; datum; construction date; source.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — well registry · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Well ID	Missing
Well ID evidence reference
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
depth	Documented
depth evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
screen interval	Documented
screen interval evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
datum	Documented
datum evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
construction date	Documented
construction date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source	Documented
source evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist.

After the action. Resolved interoperability issues and current verified metadata.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Water Resources Board hydrogeology — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Water Resources Board services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WHO water safety planning — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Ground Water Prospect · Water Systems

Existing form reference: ce5ed1b99bb3102f

Field	Unit	Required
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Aquifier	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Ground Water · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 8d60801843516765

Field	Unit	Required
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Aquifier	Confirm if needed	No
Original FID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Village Tank · Water Systems

Existing form reference: ba56f4a118b8defb

Field	Unit	Required
Number	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Data	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet	Confirm if needed	No
X	Confirm if needed	No
Y	Confirm if needed	No
XCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
YCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet Number	Confirm if needed	No
Quantity	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Village Anicut · Water Systems

Existing form reference: f173e69599dc5331

Field	Unit	Required
Serial Number	Confirm if needed	No
XCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
YCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
Code	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Basin · Water Systems

Existing form reference: aab19eb1fe26e99f

Field	Unit	Required
Basin Name	Confirm if needed	No
Number	Confirm if needed	No
Boundary	Confirm if needed	No
River Basin	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Water Shed · Water Systems

Existing form reference: f0192290b75919c0

Field	Unit	Required
Watershed_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Catchment_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Basin_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Region_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Number	Confirm if needed	No
Hectares	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Dam · Water Systems

Existing form reference: ccd11935ddd740eb

Field	Unit	Required
Dam Name	Confirm if needed	No
Dam_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Dam Storage Capacity	Confirm if needed	No
Hydraulic Head Size meter	Confirm if needed	No
Dam Size	Confirm if needed	No
Dam Construction Type	Confirm if needed	No
Dam Construction Material	Confirm if needed	No
Dam Structural Behaviour	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro Point ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

River Mouth Locations · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 8123426118305c93

Field	Unit	Required
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Capture_Type	Confirm if needed	No
WB_Number	Confirm if needed	No
Point_X	Confirm if needed	No
Point_Y	Confirm if needed	No
Zone_Name	Confirm if needed	No

Stream · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 46072ad6caa5f83d

Field	Unit	Required
Stream Type	Confirm if needed	No
Stream Name	Confirm if needed	No
Length In Km	Confirm if needed	No
Width In Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro Line ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Pond · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 66361481a1066277

Field	Unit	Required
Pond_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Pond_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Capacity_Acre_Per_Feet	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter_km	Confirm if needed	No
Area_In_sqkm	Confirm if needed	No
Depth_In_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Spill_Level_MLS	Confirm if needed	No
Catchment_Area	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Area_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Canal · Water Systems

Existing form reference: f38ab955cf2f6bd4

Field	Unit	Required
Canal Type	Confirm if needed	No
Canal Name	Confirm if needed	No
Length In Km	Confirm if needed	No
Width In Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro Area ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Lake · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 1bb76fa1770b0049

Field	Unit	Required
Lake_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Lake_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Capacity_Acre_Per_Feet	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter_km	Confirm if needed	No
Area_In_sqkm	Confirm if needed	No
Depth_In_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Spill_Level_MLS	Confirm if needed	No
Catchment_Area	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Area_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

River · Water Systems

Existing form reference: d15540e8ecb12c69

Field	Unit	Required
River Type	Confirm if needed	No
River Name	Confirm if needed	No
Length_In_Km	Confirm if needed	No
Width_In_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Area_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Lagoon · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 0f0d24cef4bd6481

Field	Unit	Required
Lagoon_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Lagoon Name	Confirm if needed	No
Primary Inflows	Confirm if needed	No
Primary_Inflows	Confirm if needed	No
Length_In_Km	Confirm if needed	No
Width_In_Km	Confirm if needed	No
Capacity_Acre_Per_Feet	Confirm if needed	No
Area_In_sqkm	Confirm if needed	No
Depth_In_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Area_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Spill Point · Water Systems

Existing form reference: dd591850f1e639e2

Field	Unit	Required
Type	Confirm if needed	No
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Sluice Point · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 70efb0310e727bec

Field	Unit	Required
Type Hydro point	Confirm if needed	No
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
hydro_point_id	Confirm if needed	No

Cascades · Water Systems

Existing form reference: a23c11282c20ec1d

Field	Unit	Required
RiverBasin Number	Confirm if needed	No
RiverBasin Name	Confirm if needed	No
SWS Number	Confirm if needed	No
SWS Name	Confirm if needed	No
Tank Cascade Number	Confirm if needed	No
Tank Cascade Name	Confirm if needed	No
Number of Tanks	Confirm if needed	No
Number of Tanks1	Confirm if needed	No
Climatic Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Remarks	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Hectares	Confirm if needed	No
UP Code	Confirm if needed	No
Color Code	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Sea Ports · Water Systems

Existing form reference: 7caa76b009c9aa66

Field	Unit	Required
Port Name	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Port Type	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No

Water Area · Water Systems

Existing form reference: d89ee67747f1e131

Field	Unit	Required
Type_Classification	Confirm if needed	No
Water Area Name	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Area_ID	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

5. Documents and images

Your institution has its own document and image library. Use the same library for reports, photos and other evidence.

Open this screen for Water Resources Board See the presentation example

Water Resources Board Documents and images prototype screen — Water Resources Board. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open Documents and images. Check the institution name.
Use All files, Documents or Images to find a file. Open its preview or download the original.
Use a sample file to try Add file. Private is the starting choice. Public needs a source, permission to share and review.
Use Access preview to try the institution reviewer and Public visitor views.

Files added in the prototype stay in this browser. Public sharing is an access preview. Existing public reference links already work online.

What your institution needs to confirm

Does a separate library for your institution meet your needs?Should new files start as Private for the permitted institution team?Should Public access require a review of the file and sharing permission?What documents and images will you store? Give the file types, usual sizes and need for earlier versions.Which job roles may add files, read Private files and approve Public files?Which files must stay Private? What permission, licence or expiry rule is needed for Public files?What else should change in this library?

6. Data structure management

Data structure keeps the existing source tree, records, charts and map. Manage structure adds a place to propose changes to definitions.

Open this screen for Water Resources Board See the presentation example

Water Resources Board Data structure management prototype screen — Water Resources Board. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open Data structure and choose Manage structure.
Use Add base domain for a main information area. Add inside creates a subject area, a nested subject, an entity type or a field under the right parent.
Give the definition a clear name, code and meaning. Reuse an existing definition when the meaning is the same.
For a field, check the data type, unit, required value, limits and missing-value rule. Save a Draft, then try the separate reviewer view.

An entity type means a kind of thing or event, such as a reservoir or an inspection. Drafts stay in this browser. A demo approval does not change real definitions, data, chart links or sharing rights.

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the existing main topics and subject areas match your institution’s work?Should definition changes stay Draft until the responsible reviewer checks them?Is it right to reuse the same entity type or field when its meaning is the same?Which main topics, subject areas, entity types or fields should we add or change?Which units, choices, limits, decimal places and missing-value rules must each new field use?Which job roles may edit definitions and review them? Who owns each main information area?When a meaning, unit or calculation changes, what review and version history does your institution need?

7. Users and access

User management shows example profiles for each institution. People and Roles and access let you review the proposed account screens.

Open this screen for Water Resources Board See the presentation example

Water Resources Board Users and access prototype screen — Water Resources Board. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open User management and choose the institution. The rows are examples, not a list of your staff.
Use View access to check a role. An administrator title alone does not give access to Private files.
Try Preview invitation or Preview access change. Check the role, start date, optional end date and reason.
Review the example permissions and tell us which job roles should receive each one.

These are interface previews only. They create no account, send no email and change no access. Use example details in the preview. Institution verification does not grant a real permission.

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the proposed role names and responsibilities match your institution?Should access be limited to the assigned institution and the agreed dates?Should reading Private files need a separate permission, even for an administrator?Which job roles should view data, add files, review Public requests, edit definitions and manage users?Who should approve new access, set an end date or remove access when someone changes duties?Which user fields, roles or access checks are missing? Give role names rather than passwords or private account details.

9. Anything else we should change?

Which decisions or services are missing?Which forms or fields should change? Give the existing form reference where possible.What should change in the entry, checking, expert, map or report steps?Are the English, Sinhala and Tamil words clear? Give the screen name, current word and your suggested wording.Who should join the next review and what should happen next?

Use the Download answers button at the top of this page. Share the downloaded file or printed copy through your agreed review channel. Nothing is sent automatically.

Water Resources Board

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

9. Anything else we should change?