Hydrohistorian
Sand Creek
Who may take water from the Sand Creek, who is calling for it today, and how it is running, compiled from Colorado Division of Water Resources records. Click anything on the map for its record.
Sand Creek on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 76 · clicktap anything for its record
The well-permit cells in view, as a table
Each row is one ~1-mile cell (0.02°) with the permits the file spots inside it, split into water-supply permits and monitoring holes (DWR’s two monitoring categories: drilled to look at the water, not to pump it). These are permits, not wells: a permit is a piece of paper, and the file does not say which were drilled. Spotting is the file’s own, about a mile at best, which is why the cells are no finer.
| Lat | Lon | Water-supply permits | Monitoring holes |
|---|
Browse this district’s ditches, gages, reservoirs, wells and springs as a list.
The weekly flow record behind this card stops at the week of 2026-07-13, so this page does not say what the Deadman Ditch is running today. No call that the record places on it is active right now. DWR's statements do not settle whether 7 more calls reach it.
Schematic
Historical
Evolution of the network
Trends
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Our computation, no independent reference · no independent reference; see /methods
This year, in context
In the weeks around 2026-09-27 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 1 ranked gage are running at a median 44% of their own long-term norm for this window — 1 below a typical year, 0 at or above. Driest relative to its record: SAND CREEK AT THE COLORADO-WYOMING STATELINE, ranking 1st lowest of 31 years.
How this comparison is made
Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-09-27, compared with the same window in every year of its own record — so a gage is only ever measured against itself, and gages with no record in the window are counted out rather than guessed.
Gage flow trend & changepoints
What counts as a trend here
Computed 2026-11-01 18:46 from 3 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. The series is each gage's annual mean flow in cfsCubic feet per second, a rate of flow. One cfs running for a day is about 2 acre-feet. (years with ≥300 days of record). Mann-Kendall (trend, with the Hamed–Rao correction for serial correlation — persistence can otherwise fake significance) and Pettitt (changepoint) both require at least 8 years spanning at least 10 years of record. A gage below that reports no signal — which is not the same as “no change.” The %-per-decade figure is the same Sen slope divided by the gage's median annual flow, for comparing across streams of very different size; it is omitted for near-ephemeral channels where the median is too small to divide by honestly.
Of the 3 gages with enough record, 0 are trending down and 0 up, and 1 carries a detected shift. The other 1 show no clear signal either way. 1 transbasin gage meters imported or exported water — marked ⇆ below and kept out of these counts, because that flow is an operator's decision, not the basin's hydrology (all transbasin diversions).
Drought history, cost, and the four-century context moved to the Drought tab.
| Gage | Trend | Change / decade cfs · % of median annual flow | Significance | Years | Changepoint |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
▸
Deadman Ditch near Deadman Park DEADDPCO |
no clear trend | -0.06 cfs -4.9% | p=0.356 | 89 | ~1969 |
|
▸
⇆
Wilson Supply Ditch near Eaton Reservoir @ 10 Ft Parshall Flume WSDEARCO |
no clear trend | -0.07 cfs -2.8% | p=0.551 | 76 | ~1970 |
1 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).
How the measurement network itself changed
This basin was not always measured the way it is today — the API-era record is dense and recent, the early record sparse. 3 gage(s) and 2 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1996. Every historical claim below is checked against this: long-term shifts that co-move with the growth of the network carry an explicit measurement-evolution caution, and abandonment screens whose idleness begins before the modern reporting era are flagged †.
| Decade | Gages with data (median yr) | Structures reporting (median yr) |
|---|---|---|
| 1930s | 2 | 0 |
| 1940s | 2 | 0 |
| 1950s | 2 | 0 |
| 1960s | 2 | 0 |
| 1970s | 2 | 0 |
| 1980s | 2 | 0 |
| 1990s | 3 | 0 |
| 2000s | 3 | 0 |
| 2010s | 3 | 2 |
| 2020s | 3 | 2 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 12% of 17 schematic-relevant structures. 0 year(s) clear the 30% coverage gate so far -- the trend activates automatically once qualifying years span a full decade. No action needed; the nightly backfill keeps extending the record.
Reach gain/loss shifts (–)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to (0 reach-snapshots) — which reaches gain or lose water, and how that has shifted across decades. Each shift is cross-checked against the observation record above: as more diversions became metered, "unaccounted" water shrinks mechanically, which can masquerade as a hydrologic shift.
No reach shows a statistically significant long-term gain/loss shift.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Not enough gages with a long enough common-coverage window yet to fingerprint shared patterns.
Data provenance & quality
Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade D (2/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260928 (imported 2026-10-04) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.
| Check | State | What was measured |
|---|---|---|
| gage freshness | stale | newest gage reading is 35 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | stale | newest diversion record is 467 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 12% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 8,589 stored values re-checked against DWR's authoritative record (HydroBase_CO_20260707), over 3 structures. 0 disagreement(s) beyond a 0.01 cfs tolerance. Checked 2026-08-19; a rotating sample covers the whole basin across successive runs, and the structures this report cites are checked every time.
3 gage(s) / 82,229 daily values (1933-05-01–2026-09-27); 3 structure(s) with diversion records; 16 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.
Groundwater
73% are constructed wells; 4% tie to a decreed structure. A permit is permission to drill, not a water right; most here are exempt household wells. More in three things called “well”, or turn on the Well permits chip on the map above to see where they sit.
Permits issued here, by year
115 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1981 to 2025; half of them had been issued by 2003, and the busiest year was 2000 with 7. The district’s 2 monitoring holes are counted apart: they are drilled to look, not to pump. A permit is not a well, and the year is the date the paper was issued, not a drilling date. The 123 above counts every permit on file here; 6 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.
water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown
The counts by year, as a table
| Year | Issued | Monitoring holes | Water-supply | Issued through that year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1981 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1982 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 1983 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 1984 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 1985 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 1986 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 1987 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 9 |
| 1988 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 12 |
| 1989 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 13 |
| 1990 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14 |
| 1991 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 18 |
| 1992 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 21 |
| 1993 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 26 |
| 1994 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 29 |
| 1995 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 32 |
| 1997 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 33 |
| 1998 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 35 |
| 1999 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 38 |
| 2000 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 45 |
| 2001 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 49 |
| 2002 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 55 |
| 2003 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 62 |
| 2004 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 65 |
| 2005 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 67 |
| 2006 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 69 |
| 2007 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 72 |
| 2008 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 74 |
| 2009 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 79 |
| 2011 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 82 |
| 2012 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 85 |
| 2013 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 90 |
| 2014 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 91 |
| 2015 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 92 |
| 2016 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 97 |
| 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 98 |
| 2018 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 102 |
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 104 |
| 2020 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 108 |
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 110 |
| 2022 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 111 |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 114 |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 117 |
Every district in the file on one scale · the whole file, one year at a time · Plate 4 of the Driller’s Atlas.
What drillers reached, township by township
3 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (101 permits in all). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 700 ft below ground: a faint lane spans the 10th to 90th percentile of where the permits naming that aquifer stopped, the solid band their screens, the tick the median. This is the permit file’s view of the ground — the aquifer is the name the driller wrote, the band is where those holes ended — not a geologic map, and a township is as fine as it gets. Monitoring holes are left out. 2 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.
43 · 88% here
29 · 76% here
29
unnamed faint = where the permits naming it stopped (10th–90th pct) · solid = their screens · tick = median · ft below ground as filed
Every township here, as a table
| Township | Share of its permits in this district | Aquifer named | Permits with a depth | Drilled depth p10 / p50 / p90, ft | Screen top p10 / p50 / p90, ft | Screen bottom p10 / p50 / p90, ft |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T11N R75W 6th PM | 88% | unnamed | 42 | 210 / 328 / 440 | 105 / 240 / 380 | 210 / 325 / 440 |
| T12N R74W 6th PM | 76% | unnamed | 29 | 99 / 325 / 520 | 120 / 260 / 396 | 148 / 325 / 556 |
| T12N R75W 6th PM | 95% | unnamed | 26 | 250 / 396 / 610 | 148 / 260 / 532 | 236 / 380 / 600 |
These columns on the map · Plate 6 of the Driller’s Atlas.
The Driller’s Atlas · Plate 2 A cross-section nobody surveyed
Every permitted well within a few miles of the line, drawn from the ground to its drilled depth as the driller filed it. The bright part of each stroke is the perforated casing — where the well actually takes water — coloured by the aquifer named on the permit. Nobody arranged these; the aquifers arrange themselves.
The ground each well hangs from is a 1-km elevation model sampled at the point the permit was spotted, so the profile is real topography smoothed to about a kilometre — peaks are shaved, valleys filled a little — and the depths are the driller’s, measured down from that ground.
Hover or arrow through the strokes to read a well.
The same corridor as a table
| Miles from A | Wells drawn | Median depth (ft) | With a screen | Most-named aquifer | No depth filed | Ground, ft above sea level (median) |
|---|
Bins run from end A to end B of the line. “Most-named aquifer” is the family most often named on permits in the bin, with its count; permits naming no aquifer are the majority of the file and are not a family.
Drought
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-27 · verify at U.S. Drought Monitor ↗
Right now
This is the 56th-driest week 29 in 91 years of record at DEADMAN DITCH NEAR DEADMAN PARK (as of 2026-07-13; this week’s flow sits at the 31st percentileRank against the record: a river at its 5th percentile is lower than it was in 95 of the past 100 years on this same date. for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Larimer County is 65% in D3 extreme drought (2026-10-27).
Every year since 1934, week by week
Each thin row is a year at DEADMAN DITCH NEAR DEADMAN PARK; each cell is one week’s flow ranked against the same calendar week of every other year — warm means dry for the date, blue wet, so seasonality cancels and droughts appear as warm bands. Gaps are missing record, never a dry river. Click a year to reconstruct it on the Historical tab.
This year against its analogs
Over the 20 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 1977 (mean gap 10.9 percentile points; next closest 2012 (12.6), 2006 (12.9)). The analog’s remainder is drawn as context — its ending is what happened to it, not a forecast for this year.
The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000
Mean share of area in each class across Larimer county — the counties this district’s gages sit in, which overlap the district imperfectly. The Drought Monitor weighs soils, vegetation and local reports; it is CONTEXT beside the river’s own record above, not the water-rights picture.
What drought has cost here
Since 1991, federal crop insurance has paid $194,432 in drought-caused claims across Larimer county — 0.8% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2017 ($39,168).
USDA crop-insurance indemnities where the recorded cause of loss is drought, summed over the counties this district's gages sit in. Counties overlap water districts imperfectly, and insured-crop claims are a floor on drought damage, not a total. Source: USDA RMA cause-of-loss files.
New to how a dry winter becomes a call on the river? Anatomy of a drought walks the chain in four minutes — snow to rivers to reservoirs to calls to the water table.
Legal
Who serves it, who protects it
Two registers the site fetches on their own schedules, read for this district. Neither is a DWR record; each links its own page and its agency.
Public water systems here
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-06 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗
No active public water system's service area or address falls in this district in EPA's file. All providers →
Instream-flow rights held by the state
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-11-01 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗
1 reach over 6.2 miles, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →
- Shell Creek, 6.25 mi: 1.1 (4/1 - 10/31), 1 (11/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2014, 14CW3149) · dossier
What the water is like -- USGS sensors right now, where it has been sampled, the impaired-waters list, and how the tap water here stands with EPA -- is on the Water quality tab.
Designated groundwater basins are on their own page.
Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR water-right transactions ↗ Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR net amounts ↗
Decreed rights on this network run from 1879-06-01 to 2014-01-28. Of the 16 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 13% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one.
Rights on file: 16 across 16 structure(s); 0 structure(s) carry 0 court-case references. Advisory reading aids on public DWR data — not administrative or legal conclusions.
Is the river getting harder to divert from?
Over 1951–2025, administration on this district has been tightening: 2 of 3 measures (days under callA senior water right demanding its water, which requires everyone junior on that stream to stop diverting until it is satisfied., calls set, seniorityColorado shares water by date: the earlier the right, the stronger its claim when the river runs short. "First in time, first in right." of the controlling call) are moving toward more administration, none the other way.
The three measures, year by year
One row per whole calendar year inside the call record's coverage (75 years); partly-covered years are omitted rather than reported as quiet. Trend is Mann-Kendall with the same significance gate as every other trend on this site. Counted from DWR's published call record, which begins in the early 2000s: earlier years are absent, not quiet. A rise in the number of calls set can also reflect how finely an administrator records one episode, which is why days under call -- insensitive to that -- is the component to read first. Advisory summary of the public record, not an administrative finding.
| Year | Days under call | Calls set | Controlling priority (median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 309 | 220 | 1873-06-30 |
| 2015 | 329 | 129 | 1870-06-01 |
| 2016 | 366 | 126 | 1875-06-30 |
| 2017 | 354 | 159 | 1881-02-01 |
| 2018 | 365 | 174 | 1876-05-10 |
| 2019 | 363 | 201 | 1881-02-01 |
| 2020 | 365 | 126 | 1869-04-01 |
| 2021 | 349 | 122 | 1867-04-15 |
| 2022 | 361 | 142 | 1867-04-15 |
| 2023 | 331 | 141 | 1869-04-01 |
| 2024 | 366 | 128 | 1881-02-01 |
| 2025 | 365 | 265 | 1881-02-01 |
Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations
Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.
- WILSON SUPPLY DITCH (7600600) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-10 (291+ days) — call at BIG T PLATTE R DITCH [heuristic-strong]
Right yield — how often could these rights actually divert?
Share of irrigation-season days each structure's rights were not called out, derived from the 22-year district-scoped call record (senior right = floor, junior right = ceiling constraint). Call-record-derived; DWR's own analysis governs where available.
| Structure | Senior priority | Senior right: median / dry yr | Junior right: median / dry yr |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRY CREEK DITCH (7600506) DWR↗ | 1909-06-11 | 12.6% / 0.0% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| JOHN GOETZ DITCH 2 (7600504) DWR↗ | 1909-06-09 | 12.6% / 0.0% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| SAND CREEK DITCH (7600500) DWR↗ | 1896-06-18 | 18.2% / 0.0% | 18.2% / 0.0% |
| JOHN GOETZ DITCH 1 (7600503) DWR↗ | 1879-06-01 | 14.5% / 0.0% | 14.5% / 0.0% |
| SHELL CREEK DITCH (7600505) DWR↗ | 1909-06-10 | 12.6% / 0.0% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| SPRING CREEK DITCH 2 (7600508) DWR↗ | 1900-05-02 | 17.8% / 0.0% | 17.8% / 0.0% |
| SEEPAGE DITCH 2 (7600501) DWR↗ | 1900-05-01 | 17.8% / 0.0% | 17.8% / 0.0% |
| SPRING CREEK DITCH 1 (7600502) DWR↗ | 1900-04-15 | 17.8% / 0.0% | 17.8% / 0.0% |
| SHELL CREEK MINMUM FLOW (7600507) DWR↗ | 2014-01-28 | 5.1% / 0.0% | 5.1% / 0.0% |
| BULL MTN SPRING (7601500) DWR↗ | 1954-06-30 | 5.1% / 0.0% | 5.1% / 0.0% |
| ORECCHIO ET AL SPRING (7601501) DWR↗ | 1983-09-30 | 5.1% / 0.0% | 5.1% / 0.0% |
| O'QUINN SPRING W 150111 (7605000) DWR↗ | 1987-10-01 | 5.1% / 0.0% | 5.1% / 0.0% |
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHN GOETZ DITCH 2 (7600504) DWR↗ | 1909-06-09 | 1 | 10.0 | 0 | — |
| DRY CREEK DITCH (7600506) DWR↗ | 1909-06-11 | 1 | 10.0 | 0 | — |
| SAND CREEK DITCH (7600500) DWR↗ | 1896-06-18 | 1 | 8.3 | 0 | — |
| JOHN GOETZ DITCH 1 (7600503) DWR↗ | 1879-06-01 | 1 | 7.8 | 0 | — |
| SHELL CREEK DITCH (7600505) DWR↗ | 1909-06-10 | 1 | 7.0 | 0 | — |
| SPRING CREEK DITCH 2 (7600508) DWR↗ | 1900-05-02 | 1 | 6.6 | 0 | — |
| SEEPAGE DITCH 2 (7600501) DWR↗ | 1900-05-01 | 1 | 5.8 | 0 | — |
| SPRING CREEK DITCH 1 (7600502) DWR↗ | 1900-04-15 | 1 | 2.7 | 0 | — |
| SHELL CREEK MINMUM FLOW (7600507) DWR↗ | 2014-01-28 | 1 | 1.1 | 0 | — |
| BULL MTN SPRING (7601500) DWR↗ | 1954-06-30 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | — |
| ORECCHIO ET AL SPRING (7601501) DWR↗ | 1983-09-30 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | — |
| O'QUINN SPRING W 150111 (7605000) DWR↗ | 1987-10-01 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | — |
| OWL SPRING #1 STOCKWATER DVLPMNT (7601502) DWR↗ | 1950-12-31 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | — |
| WILSON SUPPLY DITCH (7600600) DWR↗ | 1896-06-18 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | — |
| BULL RUN RESERVOIR (7600800) DWR↗ | 2009-02-28 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | yes |
Recent inventory & legal-document changes
- 2026-11-01 — call set: JACKSON LAKE INLET DITCH (39833)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: NORTH STERLING CANAL (39834)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: BURLINGTON D RIVER HEADGATE (39832)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: CACHE LA PODR RES INLET CANAL (39829)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: FOSSIL CREEK RES (39830)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: ROUGH READY DITCH (39831)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: BOULDER WHITE ROCK DITCH (39828)
- 2026-11-01 — call set: COMMUNITY DITCH (39827)
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
20 applications in the 2026-09 resume for this basin's division — new rights, changes, augmentation plans — from the water clerk's statutory monthly notice (C.R.S. 37-92-302), the earliest public signal of a new claim. Filings are division-wide, not district-filtered: check the county column. Full resume PDF at the Judicial Branch →
Anyone affected may file a statement of opposition until 2026-11-30 (25 days left). C.R.S. 37-92-302(3): due by the last day of the second month following the filing month — computed, not legal advice; confirm with the water clerk.
All 20 filings, with excerpts
| Case | What it asks | County | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
19CW3169
|
reasonable diligence | — | Case No. 19CW3169 Court: Water Court, Division 1. Remark: Finding of reasonable diligence for Applicant’s divided 1/8th interest in the conditional rights for the Grey Mountain Dam & Reservoir decreed in the Original Decree. 3. Other Relevant Decree : Date of … |
2026CW10
|
reasonable diligence | REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN DOUGLAS | CASE NUMBER 2026CW10 JOHN AND LINDSEY ROMINSKY, 1350 Cathedral Rock Dr., Sedalia, CO 80135. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY. Date of original decree: 12 -15-13 in case 10CW209, WD 1. Subsequent Decree: 09-04-20 in case 19CW36,… |
2026CW11
|
reasonable diligence | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW11 APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE OF JOHN HARDEN – Application incomplete -no physical legal description for structures provided. Publication of Resume for 2026CW11 to be included in future resume once amended application is … |
2026CW3143
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3143 (20CW3036, 13CW3099, 07CW75, 00CW212, 94CW26, 86CW372)… |
2026CW3144
|
reasonable diligence | NORTH WELD | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3144 (17CW3057) Name of Applicant: NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (“North Weld”) c/o Eric Reckentine, General Manager 32825 Co. Rd. 39 Lucerne, CO 80646 Phone: (970) 356 -3020 Direct all pleadings to: Scott E. Holwick, Esq. sholwick@lyonsga… |
2026CW3145
|
reasonable diligence | SOUTH | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3145 Applicants. JASON MENEGATTI AND EMILY MENEGATTI, 645 South County Road 31, Berthoud, CO 80513 with all correspondence connected herewith being sent to Applicant’s counsel, David P. Jones, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP., 5… |
2026CW3146
|
reasonable diligence | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3146 (19CW3229, 13CW3028, 96CW199, 89CW212) TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, Attn: Mark Marlowe, Director of Castle Rock Water 175 Kellogg Court Castle Rock, CO 80109 (720)733-6001. Serve all pleadings on: Madoline Wallace-Gross, Casey J. Weaver, Lyons G… |
2026CW3147
|
plan for augmentation | PASO | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3147 APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF DENVER BASIN GROUNDWATER AND PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION OF DOLLEY LIVING TRUST IN EL PASO COUNTY – Order granting motion to request no publication order by Division 1 entered September 30, 2026. Water Division … |
2026CW3148
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3148 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, c/o Nathan Baker; 220 Water Avenue, Berthoud, Colorado 80513; nbaker@northernwater.org; (800) 369- 7246; Please direct all pleadings and correspondence to Applicants counsel: Michael A. Kopp,… |
2026CW3149
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3149 LOGAN WELL USERS, INC., P.O. Box 1172, Sterling Colorado, 80751, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP Ryan M. Donovan, #44435 and Regan M. O’Donnell, #62937 Attorneys for Applicant, Logan Well Users Inc. APPLICATION TO MAKE CONDI… |
2026CW3150
|
reasonable diligence | EAST LARIMER | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3150 EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT , 232 South Link Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP, Ryan M. Donovan, #44435. David L. Strait, #52659, Attorneys for Applicant, East Larimer County Water District… |
2026CW3151
|
reasonable diligence | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3151 THE CACHE LA POUDRE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION , c/o Shawn Hoff, President, 106 Elm St., Eaton, Colorado 80615. Please send all further pleadings to: Brent A. Bartlett and Whitney Phillips, Fischer, Brown, Bartlett, Larsen & Irby, P.C., 131… |
2026CW3152
|
plan for augmentation | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3152 DAVID D. CURRIN, 17945 Saddlewood Road, Monument, CO 80132; Please direct all correspondence concerning this application to: Chris D. Cummins, Monson, Cummins, Shohet & Farr, LLC, 13511 Northgate Estates Drive, Suite 250, Colorado Spring… |
2026CW3153
|
new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3153 KIMBERLY KILZER AND MARCUS ELLER, 655 Hier Lane, Castle Rock, CO 80109. 720 -737-6252, kimberlykilzer@hotmail.com; ch4marcus@gmail.com. Forward all pleadings and correspondence to: Michael A. Kopp, #43204 and Erin Kincaid, # 61571. TROUT… |
2026CW3154
|
reasonable diligence | NAL WATER RIGHT IN CLEAR CREEK | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3154 (20CW3007; 12CW218; 03CW142; 95CW155) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, A COLORADO CORPORATION. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR A CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHT IN CLEAR CREEK… |
2026CW3155
|
reasonable diligence | AL WATER RIGHTS IN CLEAR CREEK | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3155 (20CW3006; 12CW217; 06CW18; 98CW6; 91CW15; 91CW16) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, A COLORADO CORPORATION . APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHTS I… |
2026CW3156
|
new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3156 JUAN AND ELIZABETH AGUILAR, ET AL., 9166 E Rocky Mountain Lane, Parker, CO 80138. John D Buchanan, James J Petrock, Hayes Poznanovic Korver LLC, 700 17th Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202. APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS IN T… |
2026CW3157
|
plan for augmentation | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3157 THOMAS J. RIKLI AND MEREDITH A RIKLI, 6019 Alpine Vista Circle, Unit 208, Castle Rock, Colorado 80108; Please direct all pleadings and correspondence to Applicants’ counsel: Michael A. Kopp, Trevor I. Klein, Trout Raley, 1120 Lincoln St.… |
2026CW3158
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3158 TINY TOWN INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ADAM AND ANNA WOLKE, Tiny Town Investment Corporation, 6403 Boyd Court, Castle Rock, CO 80104; Adam and Anna Wolke, 5166 Bear Mountain Road, Evergreen, CO 80439 Broadway Street, Boulder, CO 80304; Ema… |
2026CW3160
|
new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3160 ALPINE LAND RESOURCES LLC (“Alpine”), 970 Yuma St., Denver, CO 80204; Please direct all correspondence to: Wesley S. Knoll, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan LLP, 5245 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 1, Johnstown, CO 80534; wes@lcwater… |
Water quality
The water itself, in this district
Four registers, each on its own schedule: what USGS sensors read right now, where samples have been taken, which stretches the state lists as impaired, and how the tap water of the systems here stands with EPA. None is a DWR record; each links its own page.
Right now
Source Provisional telemetry · fetched 2026-11-04 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗
No USGS continuous water-quality sensor reports from inside this district. Statewide sensors →
Where water has been sampled
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗
The portal lists 1,465 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Upper Laramie 10180010; Cache La Poudre 10190007, 2% of the district), of which 93 reported a sample in the last 5 years on the state and tribal side (USGS activity is in the station count, not in that figure). Most active: Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment-WQCD (51), Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (Volunteer) (30), Colorado River Watch (10). Most-sampled groups: Nutrient, Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Inorganics, Major, Non-metals. Every station as a file ↗
Results themselves are not fetched here; USGS samples added after March 2024 may not be in the portal's legacy profiles yet.
Drinking water
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗
No community water system's service area or address falls in this district in EPA's file. All providers →
Impaired waters
Source Register of another agency · verify at EPA ATTAINS ↗
The state's 303(d) impaired-waters list has not been joined to this basin's own watershed boundary yet, so nothing is shown rather than a guess; the basins with a join carry the full list here. Why the join is geometry, not a name match.
Call cascade
If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.
What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.
Pick a calling right
Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.
Or enter an administration number directly
DWR administration numbers encode appropriation and adjudication dates; lower is more senior.
This week's diagnostic
Loading…
System status
Loading…
Active river calls
Loading…
Hydrographs vs. historical envelope
Loading…
Anomaly flags
Loading…
Topology cross-check: 1 parent disagreement (vs DWR's route framework — under review)
This flow network was built mechanically; DWR's Source Water Route Framework disagrees with it in the places below. Each row is a question a human reviewer has not yet answered — not an error verdict. Checked 1 streams, 0 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| Sand Creek | the mainstem | no parent named |
Page assembled 21:31 MST · live figures refresh through the day.