Hydrohistorian
Clear Creek
Who may take water from the Clear 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.
How this page was built
Rebuilt 2026-10-14 12:14 UTC from 8,503 input files: two runs agree (output 2532f0e86de110d0…); not compared with the analysis served here (why?). The receipt
Clear Creek on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 7 · 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 Clear Creek is well below normal for late September -- 37% of normal flow. 2 calls stand against it right now; the most senior right calling dates to 1861. 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 2026-10-01 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 74 ranked gages are running at a median 86% of their own long-term norm for this window — 50 below a typical year, 24 at or above. Driest relative to its record: ARVADA (BLUNN) RESERVOIR INLET FROM RALSTON CREEK, ranking 1st lowest of 6 years.
How this comparison is made
Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-10-01, 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 2026-10-11 19:14 from 120 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 120 gages with enough record, 8 are trending down and 2 up, and 5 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Straight Cr. Tunnel at East Portal of Eisenhower, its annual mean flow changing -0.08 cfs per decade over 31 years (p<0.0001). The other 108 show no clear signal either way. 2 transbasin gages meter 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
▸
Straight Cr. Tunnel at East Portal of Eisenhower STCTUNCO |
↓ decreasing | -0.08 cfs | p<0.001 | 31 | ~2006 |
|
▸
⚠️
Guanella Reservoir (Outflow) GUAOUTCO |
↑ increasing | +2.61 cfs +64.5% | p<0.001 | 20 | ~2014 |
|
▸
Clear Creek near Golden CLENEGCO |
↓ decreasing | -17.68 cfs -7.1% | p<0.001 | 70 | ~1938 |
|
▸
⇆
August P. Gumlick Tunnel near Jones Pass APGTUNCO |
↓ decreasing | -2.35 cfs -33.8% | p<0.001 | 48 | ~1955 |
|
▸
⚠️
Guanella Reservoir Inflow GUAINFCO |
↑ increasing | +2.05 cfs +67.2% | p=0.001 | 19 | ~2014 |
|
▸
Fisher Ditch Delivery to Cherokee Power Plant FISCOPCO |
↓ decreasing | -3.95 cfs -150.8% | p=0.002 | 13 | — |
|
▸
West Fork Clear Creek above Mouth near Empire WFCEMPCO |
↓ decreasing | -10.54 cfs -16.5% | p=0.007 | 31 | — |
|
▸
Clear Creek near Lawson CLELAWCO |
↓ decreasing | -5.39 cfs -3.9% | p=0.010 | 75 | ~1962 |
|
▸
Jones Pass Delivery to West Fork of Clear Creek GUMCLRCO |
↓ decreasing | -0.18 cfs | p=0.026 | 20 | — |
|
▸
Clear Creek above West Fork Clear Creek near Empire CLEWFOCO |
↓ decreasing
extended
72 yr: no trend
|
-11.06 cfs -14.5% | p=0.031 | 28 | — |
|
▸
North Clear Creek above Mouth near Black Hawk NCCBLACO |
↓ decreasing | -2.87 cfs -21.1% | p=0.032 | 31 | — |
|
▸
⇆
Vidler Tunnel near Argentine Pass VIDTUNCO |
no clear trend | +0.05 cfs +8.1% | p=0.417 | 55 | ~1980 |
⚠️ 2 gages flagged: their records may have quietly shifted against their neighbours, so treat their trends with caution.
How drift is detected
Every gage's annual flows are compared against each neighbour's as a double-mass curve (Searcy & Hardison, USGS WSP 1541-B); a Pettitt step test looks for a break in the ratio. A gage is flagged only when the breaks AGREE across its references, and a break against an already-suspect gage is never counted against a healthy one. A double-mass break means the ratio between two gages changed, not that either gage is faulty: a new diversion, a reservoir, or an import changes that ratio exactly as a rating shift does. Screening aid for expert review, never a measurement verdict.
108 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).
1 of those show a significant trend once extended backwards from a retired neighbour's record: Clear Creek at Golden (115 yr, decreasing). Those are reconstructions, not measurements — each gage's page shows both.
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. 102 gage(s) and 139 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1981. 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) |
|---|---|---|
| 1890s | 1 | 0 |
| 1900s | 1 | 0 |
| 1910s | 1 | 0 |
| 1920s | 1 | 0 |
| 1930s | 4 | 0 |
| 1940s | 5 | 0 |
| 1950s | 6 | 20 |
| 1960s | 5 | 19 |
| 1970s | 7 | 30 |
| 1980s | 6 | 72 |
| 1990s | 12 | 62 |
| 2000s | 14 | 62 |
| 2010s | 36 | 86 |
| 2020s | 98 | 137 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 45% of 226 schematic-relevant structures. 10 year(s) clear the 30% coverage gate so far (2016–2025) -- 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 (1950–2026)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1950 (1011 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.
- CLEAR CREEK NEAR GOLDEN, CO.: reach shifted from +78 cfs to +157 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.030, 30 yr) [mountain crystalline canyon: minimal groundwater storage -- large or shifting unaccounted losses here are more consistent with data/measurement issues or unmodeled plumbing than with aquifer exchange]
- CLEAR CREEK AT GOLDEN, CO: reach shifted from +92 cfs to +32 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.035, 52 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
Groundwater now has its own tab: 510 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Reservoirs now has its own tab: 151 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1920, click-to-chart histories.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Over the 52-year window with full coverage (1975–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 87% of year-to-year variance (almost certainly a basin-wide climate/snowpack driver).
All gages in this window move with the shared pattern -- no localized outlier.
Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-10-01)
Which structures' data absorbed the most correction when the current mass-balance snapshot was reconciled -- see the Historical tab for the full picture on any date.
- SEA OF TRANQUILLITY RES (diversion): -7.2 cfs (50% of that reach's correction)
- DORY LAKE INLET DITCH (diversion): -7.2 cfs (50% of that reach's correction)
- HIAWATHA DIVERSION (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- WIDEAWAKE UPPER SPRING (return): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- WIDEAWAKE LOWER SPRING (return): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- MARYS LAKE (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- PATRICIA LAKE (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- LAKE SUSAN (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- MINERS DITCH PIPELINE (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
- HIDDEN VALLEY SURFACE DIVERSION (diversion): +1.1 cfs (7% of that reach's correction)
Data provenance & quality
Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade B (4/6 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 10 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 346 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | partial | 45% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 580,149 stored values re-checked against DWR's authoritative record (HydroBase_CO_20260707), over 25 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.
Federal cross-check: WARN — 93.27% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 20 co-listed station(s) and 155,784 overlapping days (within max(2%, 0.5 cfs) daily). Pre-1950 records at some gages carry known between-agency day-stamp and transcription differences — scored at each year's best ±1-day alignment; residual disagreement is real historical divergence, flagged for review.
120 gage(s) / 593,237 daily values (1899-04-01–2026-10-01); 266 structure(s) with diversion records; 1815 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
Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR groundwater wells ↗ Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR well permits ↗
4,045 water-level measurements across 510 monitored well(s) — 276 alluvial, 96 bedrock — plus 6 administered well(s) reporting metered pumping.
What is being counted
Observation wells and pumping wells are different populations and are never conflated: water levels come from monitored observation wells, and metered pumping comes from administered wells reporting through diversion records. Click any well to chart its own record.
Well map
3D aquifer x-ray
Every aquifer unit as its own head surface, animated through time.
How the surfaces are built, and what they are not
Alluvial water table on top, Denver Basin members (Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe, Laramie–Fox Hills) stacked beneath where measured, interpolated from measured water levels. Units are never mixed; a surface exists only inside its own unit's well coverage, with no extrapolation; thin epochs are suppressed and say why. Vertical scale is exaggerated for readability and z is head elevation in feet. These are measured heads, not a calibrated groundwater model.
Water-table trends
Of 6 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 1 declining, 3 rising.
| Fastest-declining wells | Setting | ft / decade | Span | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ DB-200 PV-KLF | bedrock | -7.83 | 46 yr | 0.0006 |
Stream corridors — the surface connection
Where a reach's gain or loss has shifted, the wells within two miles of its anchoring gage and what their water table did over the same era.
How the corridor is assembled
For each reach whose gain/loss has shifted (Trends tab): the wells within 2 miles of its anchoring gage, their pooled water-table history over the same era, and an advisory Glover screen of lagged stream depletion from nearby metered pumping. v1 proximity = distance to the reach's anchoring gage; segment-based reach join is a flagged upgrade.
CLEAR CREEK NEAR GOLDEN, CO.: 4 alluvial well(s) nearby. Glover screen: 3.1 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 1.9–2.9 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).
CLEAR CREEK AT GOLDEN, CO: 4 alluvial well(s) nearby. Glover screen: 3.1 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 2.5–3.0 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).
Wells labeled by administrative world before anything else is said about them: tributary alluvium participates in the priority system; designated-basin and Denver Basin bedrock aquifers are governed differently and are excluded from stream-connection reasoning. Read bedrock declines differently too: deep bedrock aquifers recharge negligibly on human timescales, so a falling bedrock level is storage mining — effectively permanent — not a drought response that a wet year undoes. All screens advisory.
56% are constructed wells; 7% 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
9,561 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1936 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 1988, and the busiest year was 1972 with 646. The district’s 4,017 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 17,490 above counts every permit on file here; 3,912 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 1 issued before 1950 is in the table, not the bars
The counts by year, as a table
| Year | Issued | Monitoring holes | Water-supply | Issued through that year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1936 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1952 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 1953 | 11 | 0 | 11 | 13 |
| 1954 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 33 |
| 1955 | 67 | 0 | 67 | 100 |
| 1956 | 34 | 0 | 34 | 134 |
| 1957 | 82 | 0 | 82 | 216 |
| 1958 | 75 | 0 | 75 | 291 |
| 1959 | 101 | 0 | 101 | 392 |
| 1960 | 118 | 0 | 118 | 510 |
| 1961 | 76 | 0 | 76 | 586 |
| 1962 | 76 | 0 | 76 | 662 |
| 1963 | 80 | 0 | 80 | 742 |
| 1964 | 60 | 0 | 60 | 802 |
| 1965 | 64 | 0 | 64 | 866 |
| 1966 | 57 | 0 | 57 | 923 |
| 1967 | 44 | 0 | 44 | 967 |
| 1968 | 58 | 0 | 58 | 1,025 |
| 1969 | 52 | 0 | 52 | 1,077 |
| 1970 | 62 | 0 | 62 | 1,139 |
| 1971 | 94 | 0 | 94 | 1,233 |
| 1972 | 646 | 0 | 646 | 1,879 |
| 1973 | 193 | 0 | 193 | 2,072 |
| 1974 | 117 | 0 | 117 | 2,189 |
| 1975 | 91 | 0 | 91 | 2,280 |
| 1976 | 134 | 0 | 134 | 2,414 |
| 1977 | 270 | 0 | 270 | 2,684 |
| 1978 | 418 | 0 | 418 | 3,102 |
| 1979 | 343 | 0 | 343 | 3,445 |
| 1980 | 205 | 0 | 205 | 3,650 |
| 1981 | 180 | 0 | 180 | 3,830 |
| 1982 | 139 | 0 | 139 | 3,969 |
| 1983 | 175 | 1 | 174 | 4,144 |
| 1984 | 131 | 0 | 131 | 4,275 |
| 1985 | 139 | 0 | 139 | 4,414 |
| 1986 | 153 | 19 | 134 | 4,567 |
| 1987 | 162 | 21 | 141 | 4,729 |
| 1988 | 121 | 14 | 107 | 4,850 |
| 1989 | 228 | 116 | 112 | 5,078 |
| 1990 | 299 | 196 | 103 | 5,377 |
| 1991 | 280 | 139 | 141 | 5,657 |
| 1992 | 367 | 183 | 184 | 6,024 |
| 1993 | 426 | 207 | 219 | 6,450 |
| 1994 | 413 | 175 | 238 | 6,863 |
| 1995 | 360 | 118 | 242 | 7,223 |
| 1996 | 290 | 82 | 208 | 7,513 |
| 1997 | 277 | 70 | 207 | 7,790 |
| 1998 | 327 | 115 | 212 | 8,117 |
| 1999 | 286 | 115 | 171 | 8,403 |
| 2000 | 269 | 77 | 192 | 8,672 |
| 2001 | 353 | 161 | 192 | 9,025 |
| 2002 | 289 | 104 | 185 | 9,314 |
| 2003 | 443 | 208 | 235 | 9,757 |
| 2004 | 385 | 261 | 124 | 10,142 |
| 2005 | 310 | 192 | 118 | 10,452 |
| 2006 | 136 | 32 | 104 | 10,588 |
| 2007 | 122 | 39 | 83 | 10,710 |
| 2008 | 112 | 38 | 74 | 10,822 |
| 2009 | 92 | 17 | 75 | 10,914 |
| 2010 | 93 | 29 | 64 | 11,007 |
| 2011 | 97 | 29 | 68 | 11,104 |
| 2012 | 111 | 38 | 73 | 11,215 |
| 2013 | 114 | 43 | 71 | 11,329 |
| 2014 | 129 | 63 | 66 | 11,458 |
| 2015 | 198 | 105 | 93 | 11,656 |
| 2016 | 279 | 201 | 78 | 11,935 |
| 2017 | 287 | 171 | 116 | 12,222 |
| 2018 | 218 | 105 | 113 | 12,440 |
| 2019 | 227 | 128 | 99 | 12,667 |
| 2020 | 190 | 91 | 99 | 12,857 |
| 2021 | 187 | 88 | 99 | 13,044 |
| 2022 | 206 | 112 | 94 | 13,250 |
| 2023 | 98 | 19 | 79 | 13,348 |
| 2024 | 100 | 54 | 46 | 13,448 |
| 2025 | 79 | 30 | 49 | 13,527 |
| 2026 | 51 | 11 | 40 | 13,578 |
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
17 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (8,951 permits in all). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 1,300 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. 8 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.
1,935 · 53% here
1,781 · 87% here
1,490 · 73% here
828 · 58% here
570 · 62% here
473
453
332
314
281
195
147 · 42% here
54
44
29
13 · 90% here
12 · 73% here
unnamed alluvium Denver Arapahoe Laramie-Fox Hills fractured crystalline other named 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2S R72W 6th PM | 53% | unnamed | 1,906 | 81 / 240 / 451 | 35 / 170 / 363 | 110 / 260 / 452 |
| T2S R72W 6th PM | 53% | fractured crystalline | 28 | 122 / 330 / 616 | 170 / 250 / 520 | 230 / 330 / 680 |
| T3S R69W 6th PM | 87% | alluvium | 42 | 18 / 28 / 42 | 8 / 15 / 24 | 19 / 29 / 41 |
| T3S R69W 6th PM | 87% | unnamed | 1,653 | 20 / 42 / 284 | 10 / 20 / 140 | 22 / 40 / 279 |
| T3S R69W 6th PM | 87% | Denver | 31 | 40 / 180 / 340 | 10 / 75 / 222 | 48 / 192 / 361 |
| T3S R69W 6th PM | 87% | Arapahoe | 49 | 350 / 525 / 711 | 160 / 339 / 461 | 324 / 499 / 684 |
| T4S R72W 6th PM | 73% | unnamed | 1,471 | 110 / 301 / 605 | 55 / 200 / 456 | 158 / 340 / 630 |
| T4S R72W 6th PM | 73% | fractured crystalline | 17 | 362 / 701 / 892 | 182 / 302 / 534 | 309 / 564 / 845 |
| T4S R70W 6th PM | 58% | Denver | 39 | 100 / 170 / 266 | 33 / 74 / 140 | 131 / 172 / 277 |
| T4S R70W 6th PM | 58% | unnamed | 762 | 61 / 300 / 727 | 52 / 200 / 480 | 171 / 382 / 770 |
| T4S R70W 6th PM | 58% | Arapahoe | 9 | 200 / 300 / 552 | — | — |
| T4S R70W 6th PM | 58% | fractured crystalline | 11 | 400 / 601 / 902 | 169 / 378 / 616 | 397 / 600 / 856 |
| T2S R73W 6th PM | 62% | unnamed | 561 | 75 / 250 / 601 | 30 / 180 / 440 | 110 / 276 / 600 |
| T2S R73W 6th PM | 62% | fractured crystalline | 9 | 244 / 320 / 502 | 208 / 271 / 324 | 268 / 360 / 611 |
| T3S R73W 6th PM | 99% | unnamed | 460 | 58 / 268 / 621 | 30 / 200 / 470 | 75 / 305 / 648 |
| T3S R73W 6th PM | 99% | fractured crystalline | 11 | 260 / 440 / 740 | 232 / 280 / 442 | 288 / 480 / 804 |
| T3S R70W 6th PM | 98% | unnamed | 368 | 22 / 76 / 500 | 10 / 65 / 363 | 33 / 245 / 623 |
| T3S R70W 6th PM | 98% | Denver | 30 | 104 / 150 / 230 | 17 / 40 / 76 | 98 / 140 / 199 |
| T3S R70W 6th PM | 98% | Arapahoe | 36 | 265 / 524 / 698 | 91 / 357 / 586 | 302 / 500 / 790 |
| T3S R70W 6th PM | 98% | Laramie-Fox Hills | 10 | 466 / 1,192 / 1,298 | 176 / 905 / 1,125 | 626 / 1,125 / 1,348 |
| T3S R71W 6th PM | 99% | unnamed | 326 | 125 / 380 / 802 | 60 / 235 / 450 | 151 / 400 / 805 |
| T3S R71W 6th PM | 99% | fractured crystalline | 6 | 738 / 1,076 / 1,290 | — | — |
| T3S R72W 6th PM | 99% | unnamed | 303 | 125 / 325 / 688 | 55 / 200 / 478 | 145 / 342 / 682 |
| T3S R72W 6th PM | 99% | fractured crystalline | 8 | 502 / 702 / 832 | 291 / 491 / 620 | 577 / 780 / 841 |
| T3S R74W 6th PM | 100% | unnamed | 276 | 35 / 80 / 351 | 24 / 56 / 273 | 38 / 98 / 384 |
| T4S R73W 6th PM | 97% | unnamed | 192 | 33 / 295 / 652 | 30 / 200 / 505 | 119 / 405 / 772 |
| T2S R70W 6th PM | 42% | unnamed | 102 | 25 / 168 / 604 | 20 / 72 / 474 | 59 / 222 / 664 |
| T2S R70W 6th PM | 42% | Arapahoe | 14 | 133 / 270 / 465 | 20 / 90 / 176 | 116 / 179 / 356 |
| T2S R70W 6th PM | 42% | other named | 18 | 490 / 650 / 1,030 | 216 / 335 / 450 | 570 / 650 / 1,000 |
| T2S R70W 6th PM | 42% | Laramie-Fox Hills | 12 | 1,021 / 1,060 / 1,099 | 362 / 838 / 916 | 540 / 1,056 / 1,090 |
| T4S R74W 6th PM | 98% | unnamed | 53 | 35 / 120 / 600 | 46 / 107 / 331 | 58 / 212 / 602 |
| T3S R75W 6th PM | 98% | unnamed | 43 | 37 / 200 / 496 | 20 / 160 / 355 | 40 / 240 / 541 |
| T4S R75W 6th PM | 100% | unnamed | 28 | 17 / 63 / 168 | 21 / 63 / 122 | 37 / 75 / 197 |
| T4S R76W 6th PM | 90% | unnamed | 13 | 26 / 150 / 547 | 132 / 203 / 269 | 216 / 325 / 574 |
| T2S R74W 6th PM | 73% | unnamed | 12 | 36 / 83 / 158 | 22 / 52 / 112 | 60 / 118 / 185 |
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.
Reservoirs
Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR structure records ↗
151 reservoir(s) with 37,307 storage measurement(s), 1920–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 31,848 AF across 39 reservoir(s).
Why storage matters to the flow network
Storage change is real water the mass balance must credit — a losing reach beside a filling reservoir isn't losing water, it's banking it.
Reservoir map — how full is each vessel?
What “full” is measured against
Bubble size is proportional to a reservoir's record-high storage. Fill is its last recorded storage as a share of its surveyed capacity (USACE National Inventory of Dams) where a confident NID match exists — the tooltip names the matched dam — and as a share of its own record high otherwise. A wrong capacity would be worse than an honest record high, so only confident joins upgrade.
A dashed teal ring marks reservoirs reporting live DWR telemetry: their fill reflects yesterday's storage, is drawn as a dotted tail on charts, and is treated as provisional until the next verified HydroBase snapshot supersedes it.
A dashed red ring marks a dam under an active storage restriction from DWR's Dam Safety branch — the State Engineer has limited how much it may legally store, so a low fill can be an order, not a drought. Hazard class and inspection condition come from the same record, joined only where the dam carries this reservoir's WDID or a confident NID match — a wrong dam's restriction would be worse than none shown.
Basin storage, end of each water year
End-of-water-year totals; per-year reservoir counts shown because reporting coverage varies -- a total is only comparable to years with similar counts.
Largest reservoirs on record
Click a row to chart its full storage history, or open its dossier for rights, documents and dam-safety facts.
| Reservoir | Last recorded storage (AF) | As of | Full | Dam (DWR Dam Safety) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ 0703903 | 35,554 | 1993-10-01 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ RALSTON RES (0703324) | 9,036 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ 0703018 | 6,512 | 2012-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ BLUNN RES (0703308) | 5,177 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ COORS B4 (0703407) | 4,000 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ 0704357 | 3,000 | 1965-11-01 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ 0704403 | 3,000 | 1963-11-01 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ COORS B3(THUET MAUZ RES) (0703406) | 2,986 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
Snow and runoff
Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-14 · verify at NRCS report generator ↗ Source Our computation, scored against a reference · NRCS forecast, graded here against the gage record
Snow-water equivalent, WY2027
| SNOTEL site | Elev (ft) | SWE (in) | Median (in) | % of median | Typical peak |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loveland Basin | 11410 | 0.2 | 0.8 | — | May 2 (24.4 in) |
NRCS SNOTEL, daily. Sites are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — the snow that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district.
Two ways a snow year goes wrong (1993–2026)
A bad snow year here comes in two flavors (both called snow droughtA winter that shorts the snowpack. It happens two ways: a dry one, where the snow never comes, and a warm one, where near-normal snow falls but melts off weeks early -- and the river feels them differently.), and the river feels them differently. In 5 of the last 34 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 0 more, the snow came but left early — a near-normal peak melted out two weeks or more ahead of its usual date, sending the water down before the season needed it.
The snow never came: 2002, 2004, 2012, 2021, 2026.
Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1993). Each year is measured against each site’s own multi-decade median — not the 1991–2020 normal the chart above uses — so the 1980s grade against a fair baseline. Peak and melt-out need 85% of the season’s days on the record; thin years are dropped, not guessed. Derived from snow measurements alone — it cannot tell dry-from-warm causes apart, only what the snowpack did.
Runoff outlook — Clear Ck at Golden
NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 52 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 52% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 42, probably not more than 63. Our own record at this gage shows 26 kAF actually delivered. New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →
We test a record-based adjustment of the April benchmark at every graded point. Here it did not beat NRCS over 82 replayed seasons (17% typical miss unadjusted vs 20% adjusted), so none is shown — NRCS’s own forecast, unadjusted, is the best April benchmark available for this river. Why we test →
| 90% chance of at least | 70% chance of at least | 50% chance of at least | 30% chance of at least | 10% chance of at least | Normal | Observed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 48 | 52 | 56 | 63 | 100 | 26 |
How good are these forecasts here? (1975–2025)
Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 50 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 19%, with a high bias of 7%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 78% of the time (a calibrated forecast would say 80%).
Computed by this site: NRCS's archived April issues (their period as issued each year) against the observed volume in DWR’s published record; years with under 90% daily coverage are dropped, not summed. A grade of the forecast, never of the forecasters — these are hard rivers. How this point ranks among every graded Colorado forecast point →
What April snow has meant for this river (1993–2026)
Across 34 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 71% of a normal season (a snow-to-runoff elasticityHow strongly one number moves with another. A snow-to-runoff elasticity of 1.5 means a 10% shortfall in April snowpack has typically become a 15% shortfall in the season's water. of 1.3).
Computed by this site: the district’s April 1 SWE (% of each SNOTEL site’s own-record median) against the observed April–July volume at this gage (% of its median season) — a fixed window every year, unlike the forecast grades above, which use each issue’s own period. The slope is fit so single wild years can’t steer it (Theil–Sen, log space); years missing 10% of their days are dropped.
Drought
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-06 · verify at U.S. Drought Monitor ↗
Right now
This is the 37th-driest week 40 in 101 years of record at CLEAR CREEK AT DERBY (as of 2026-09-28; this week’s flow sits at the 37th 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, Summit County is 88% in D4 exceptional drought (2026-10-06). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 99% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.
Every year since 1914, week by week
Each thin row is a year at CLEAR CREEK AT DERBY; 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 40 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2002 (mean gap 13.4 percentile points; next closest 1954 (16.4), 1981 (16.7)). 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 Adams, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Summit counties — 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.
The law’s own drought gauge
When water runs short, administration answers: calls reach further back in time, and more decreed rights go junior to the calling right. This is that response, weekly since 2004 — the share of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the most senior active call. Watch it spike in the named droughts below, and linger after the river recovers.
Computed from DWR’s call record (1615 calls touching this district) against the district’s rights index. Scoping is deliberately coarse — a call’s own district, or districts named in its comments — and this is administration’s RESPONSE, not a per-structure verdict (each dossier’s curtailment card does that, with stream miles). A deepening call can also reflect growing demand, not only shrinking supply.
1635–1987: this river before anyone measured it
Tree rings record wet and dry years centuries before the first gage. This is the published reconstruction of annual flow at Clear Creek at Golden — 353 years, with its uncertainty band drawn, not implied — and the green line is the measured record at the same gage, water-year totals from DWR’s daily data, carrying the story through 2026. A reconstruction is an estimate, not a measurement: it answers “is this decade unusual in four centuries?”, and nothing in this site’s statistics uses it.
Why the two lines disagree on purpose: the trees were calibrated against naturalized flow — upstream diversions and storage added back — while the gage measures what the ditches left in the river. So the measured line running below the reconstruction is not an error; the gap is, roughly, human use. Over the 13 years both series cover, the river carried a median of 82% of its estimated natural flow past this gage. And because the reconstruction was fit to gage-era data, the overlap shows how well trees track the river (the authors report the models explain 63–76% of gage variance) — it is a calibration, not an independent test.
Woodhouse, C.A. and J.J. Lukas (2006), Multi-century tree-ring reconstructions of Colorado streamflow for water resource planning, Climatic Change 78; data via NOAA NCEI World Data Service for Paleoclimatology / TreeFlow. Source data ↗
This basin’s droughts, by its own record
| Drought | Span | Weeks | Trough percentile | Flows recovered | Water table back |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| unnamed dry spell | 2026-04-27 → 2026-09-28 | 22 | 12th (2026-09-07) | not yet | — |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2020-09-14 → 2021-05-10 | 34 | 19th (2021-01-11) | 88 weeks | — |
| the 2012-13 drought | 2012-07-02 → 2013-10-07 | 66 | 13th (2012-09-03) | 0 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 2006-01-09 → 2006-08-21 | 32 | 21st (2006-04-10) | 23 weeks | — |
| the 2002 drought | 2002-03-11 → 2003-07-21 | 71 | 7th (2002-09-23) | 0 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 1994-10-24 → 1995-06-19 | 34 | 17th (1994-12-12) | 0 weeks | 1 yr (5 wells, 1 still below) |
| the 1981 drought | 1981-01-12 → 1982-10-11 | 91 | 7th (1982-04-26) | 0 weeks | 7 yr (6 wells, 2 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 1978-12-18 → 1979-07-16 | 30 | 15th (1979-02-26) | 1 week | — |
| the 1977 drought | 1977-06-20 → 1978-08-21 | 61 | 5th (1978-02-20) | 48 weeks | — |
| the 1977 drought | 1976-04-26 → 1976-11-15 | 29 | 23rd (1976-07-12) | 140 weeks | — |
| the 1963-64 drought | 1963-07-22 → 1963-12-09 | 20 | 22nd (1963-08-26) | 3 weeks | not yet (3 of 5 wells still below) |
| the 1950s drought | 1957-02-04 → 1957-07-08 | 22 | 22nd (1957-03-11) | 1 week | — |
| the 1950s drought | 1954-03-29 → 1955-10-17 | 81 | 10th (1954-09-20) | 3 weeks | — |
| the 1950s drought | 1953-04-06 → 1953-08-24 | 20 | 24th (1953-05-18) | 6 weeks | — |
Detected mechanically: the 26-week smoothed percentile below the 30th for at least 20 weeks; recovered on regaining the 50th. The water-table clock compares each monitoring well against its own pre-drought median (the 3 years before onset) and dates the year the median well got back — the aquifer remembers longest, and “still below” is a finding, not a gap. The knobs are stated because the episode list depends on them — a different reasonable choice merges or splits episodes at the edges. Names are attached where an episode overlaps a drought Colorado already talks about.
What drought has cost here
Since 1991, federal crop insurance has paid $76,153,742 in drought-caused claims across Adams, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Summit counties — 51.9% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2022 ($17,283,650).
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.
When this basin claimed its water
Every bar is a year’s new appropriations (2,156 rights across 101 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is +0.16 — essentially no wet-dry pattern; here, law and settlement set the pace, not the weather. Across the state both behaviors exist: ephemeral southwest basins file after wet demonstrations, transbasin-source basins under drought — and the biggest statewide filing waves sat in the 1950s drought and after 2002, not in the wet 1980s–90s.
Appropriation dates are the CLAIMED initiation of a right, not the courthouse filing date; the record is survivor-biased (abandoned claims are absent, so failed dry-era scrambles are undercounted); and the big 1960s and 2000s spikes sit on legal events — the pre-1969-Act adjudication era and 2000s legislation — not on weather. A correlation here is a description, never a cause.
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 ↗
27 systems touch this district (27 community systems reporting 1,906,414 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); 2 of them carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record.
| System | Serves | Source | Here |
|---|---|---|---|
| DENVER WATER BOARD | 1,287,000 | Surface water | 2% of its area |
| WESTMINSTER CITY OF | 202,078 | Surface water | 11% of its area |
| ARVADA CITY OF | 171,610 | Surface water | 85% of its area |
| CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL MAPLE GROVE | 81,400 | Surface water | 40% of its area |
| GOLDEN CITY OF | 38,288 | Surface water | 99% of its area |
| CRESTVIEW WSD | 23,756 | Purchased surface water | 83% of its area |
| WHEAT RIDGE WATER DISTRICT | 20,000 | Purchased surface water | 98% of its area |
| BLACK HAWK CITY OF | 15,167 | Surface water | 100% of its area |
and 19 more; the full directory filters by district.
Instream-flow rights held by the state
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-11 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗
26 reaches over 127.5 miles and 2 natural lake levels, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →
- Clear Creek, 13.5 mi: 10 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1984, 84CW0649) · dossier
- West Fork Clear Creek, 9.1 mi: 5 (11/1 - 3/31), 11 (4/1 - 10/31) cfs (appropriated 1987, 87CW0276) · dossier
- Fall River, 8.5 mi: 5.25 (5/1 - 9/30), 2 (10/1 - 4/30) cfs (appropriated 1995, 95CW0256) · dossier
- Ralston Creek, 7.6 mi: 0.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1986, 86CW0302) · dossier
- Leavenworth Creek, 7.1 mi: 1.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1984, 85CW0418) · dossier
- Bard Creek, 7.0 mi: 1.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1984, 84CW0653) · dossier
and 22 more on the district's instream-flow page.
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 1859-12-31 to 2023-07-05. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 100% of a median irrigation season and 87% in a dry one. 23 abandonment screens and 30 compliance flags are listed below as leads for review — a screen is not an abandonment and a flag is not a violation.
Rights on file: 3627 across 1815 structure(s); 153 structure(s) carry 960 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 | 162 | 1870-06-01 |
| 2016 | 366 | 199 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2017 | 355 | 279 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2018 | 365 | 306 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2019 | 365 | 321 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2020 | 366 | 230 | 1867-04-15 |
| 2021 | 365 | 236 | 1867-04-15 |
| 2022 | 365 | 279 | 1862-06-06 |
| 2023 | 365 | 289 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2024 | 366 | 234 | 1869-06-01 |
| 2025 | 365 | 373 | 1869-04-01 |
What the water is for — decade by decade
Of the water this district's structures diverted, the share whose decree includes municipal supply moved from 98% in the 1980s to 98% in the 2020s.
The decades, and how the attribution works
Every structure's recorded diversions, attributed to what its water was decreed FOR in that year. Colorado decrees are usually multi-use (“IRR MUN COM IND…”), so these are shares of water whose decree includes a use — non-exclusive, and they do not sum to 100%. A right that adds municipal use in 1988 counts toward it only after. Decades before this basin's modern reporting era are flagged: their records are thinner, not their rivers drier. Shares of recorded diverted volume, not of water rights or of acreage. A structure's water is attributed only to uses decreed by that year, so a later municipal decree cannot reach back and recolour earlier diversions. Families overlap -- a ditch decreed for irrigation and municipal supply counts in both -- so shares can sum past 100%. Volume the record cannot attribute is reported separately, never distributed.
| Decade | Recorded AF | Structures | Includes municipal | Unattributed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1950s † | 1,280,375 | 29 | 95% | 7% |
| 1960s † | 1,266,620 | 23 | 100% | 11% |
| 1970s † | 1,605,009 | 66 | 98% | 14% |
| 1980s | 2,001,871 | 84 | 98% | 14% |
| 1990s | 2,020,227 | 58 | 100% | 14% |
| 2000s | 1,694,114 | 64 | 100% | 9% |
| 2010s | 2,374,510 | 153 | 98% | 34% |
| 2020s | 1,729,729 | 143 | 98% | 27% |
Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations
Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls. Self-check: 84% of the 19 explanations coverable by DWR's own out-of-priority analysis agree with it (6 outside its scope).
- COLO AGRICULTURAL D (0700549) DWR↗ stopped 2025-10-04 (27+ days) — call at CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CROKE CANAL (0700553) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-07 (11+ days) — call at CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CHURCH DITCH (0700540) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-06 (86+ days) — call at CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- GREEN LAKE DITCH (0700582) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-03 (89+ days) — call at CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
- MANHART DITCH (0700614) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-23 (8+ days) — call at BLUNN RES curtailing 93% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CROKE CANAL (0700553) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-14 (10+ days) — call at BLUNN RES curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CROKE CANAL (0700553) DWR↗ stopped 2025-04-07 (29+ days) — call at WANNAMAKER DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- AGRICULTURAL DITCH (0700502) DWR↗ stopped 2024-11-01 (155+ days) — call at TUCKER RES curtailing 98% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- FARMERS HIGHLINE CANAL (0700569) DWR↗ stopped 2024-11-01 (150+ days) — call at TUCKER RES curtailing 99% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- FISHER DITCH (0700570) DWR↗ stopped 2024-11-01 (171+ days) — call at TUCKER RES curtailing 60% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D (0700547) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-31 (151+ days) — call at TUCKER RES curtailing 63% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]
- CHURCH DITCH (0700540) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-04 (220+ days) — call at B H EATON DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
DWR out-of-priority analysis (scoped structures)
| Structure | Right (admin no) | Mean % out of priority | Days curtailed | Span |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAINES PIQUETTE DITCH (0700586) DWR↗ | 52466.00000 | 88.6% | 89.1% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| LONG LAKE DITCH (0700711) DWR↗ | 21706.00000 | 82.2% | 82.6% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| AGRICULTURAL DITCH (0700502) DWR↗ | 60996.38628 | 79.2% | 79.4% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| LINDSTROM NO 2 DITCH (0700606) DWR↗ | 57023.00000 | 79.2% | 79.4% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| FARMERS HIGHLINE CANAL (0700569) DWR↗ | 60996.00000 | 78.9% | 79.0% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| CHURCH DITCH (0700540) DWR↗ | 55149.00000 | 78.8% | 79.1% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| LONG LAKE DITCH (0700711) DWR↗ | 8550.00000 | 78.8% | 79.2% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| COORS INDUSTRIAL DITCH (0700725) DWR↗ | 54421.51395 | 78.8% | 79.1% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| GOLDEN CITY WATER WORKS PIPELINE (0700575) DWR↗ | 53325.50130 | 78.7% | 79.0% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| WELCH DITCH (0700699) DWR↗ | 51696.00000 | 78.6% | 78.9% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| LOWER LOVELAND SNOWMAKING & DOMESTIC DIVERSION (0700874) DWR↗ | 50768.00000 | 78.6% | 78.9% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| LEE STEWART ESKINS DITCH (0700601) DWR↗ | 58286.00000 | 78.5% | 79.0% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| BLUNN RES (0703308) DWR↗ | 61358.00000 | 78.4% | 78.6% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| WANNAMAKER DITCH (0700698) DWR↗ | 53325.50130 | 78.0% | 78.4% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN DITCH (0700652) DWR↗ | 61322.00000 | 76.9% | 77.2% | 2021-01-01 – 2025-12-31 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| FARMERS HIGHLINE CANAL (0700569) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| CHURCH DITCH (0700540) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| CROKE CANAL (0700553) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| 0701000 DWR↗ | 1998-12-30 | 4.7% / 0.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN DITCH (0700652) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| AGRICULTURAL DITCH (0700502) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| 0700873 DWR↗ | 1860-05-16 | 100.0% / 86.9% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| CHURCH DITCH RALSTON CREEK DIVERSION (0700942) DWR↗ | 1860-08-31 | 100.0% / 78.5% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| FARMERS HIGHLINE RALSTON CREEK (0700872) DWR↗ | 1860-08-31 | 100.0% / 78.5% | 4.7% / 0.0% |
| 0700871 DWR↗ | 1860-05-16 | 100.0% / 86.9% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| 0700648 DWR↗ | 1906-10-17 | 12.6% / 0.0% | 12.6% / 0.0% |
| 0700877 DWR↗ | 1930-01-01 | 5.1% / 0.0% | 5.1% / 0.0% |
Abandonment radar (23 screens)
Absolute rights with 10+ years of no recorded diversions. Screens only — storage, alternate points, and plan operations can explain nonuse lawfully. And diversion REPORTING itself only reached its modern level ~1981 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- GOLDEN CITY WATER WORKS PIPELINE (0700575) DWR↗ (1860-02-25, 21.2 cfs decreed): last active 1952 — 73 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1981) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- 0700666 DWR↗ (1893-08-23, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1981) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- 0700581 DWR↗ (1863-05-21, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1980 — 45 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1981) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- 0703398 DWR↗ (1974-04-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1981 — 44 years idle
- 0704396 DWR↗ (1871-12-31, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1987 — 38 years idle
- SMALL STORAGE TANKS (0704079) DWR↗ (1988-07-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1991 — 34 years idle
- RHODES SOUTH DITCH (0700650) DWR↗ (1865-07-05, 2.8 cfs decreed): last active 1992 — 33 years idle
- LOWER LOVELAND SNOWMAKING & DOMESTIC DIVERSION (0700874) DWR↗ (1988-12-30, 11.0 cfs decreed): last active 1992 — 33 years idle
- LOVELAND BASIN RES (0703391) DWR↗ (1984-08-21, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1992 — 33 years idle
- LOVELAND VALLEY RES (0703392) DWR↗ (1984-08-21, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1992 — 33 years idle
Compliance screens (30 advisory flags)
Screened 83 of 1815 structures with rights (134 have diversion history on file). A flag is a lead for expert review — augmentation plans, exchanges, and free-river conditions can make over-decree diversions lawful and are deliberately not modeled.
- GOLDEN CITY WATER WORKS PIPELINE (0700575) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 110.0 cfs (max 110.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 21.2 cfs across 1029 recorded day(s).
- 0700666 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 49.0 cfs (max 68.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 2950 recorded day(s).
- BLUNN RES (0703308) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 32.1 cfs (max 416.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 15.1 cfs across 51491 recorded day(s).
- CROKE CANAL RALSTON CREEK DIVERSION (0700728) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 19.0 cfs (max 19.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.1 cfs across 192 recorded day(s).
- KERSHAW DITCH (0700597) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 13.0 cfs (max 16.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 11.4 cfs across 34138 recorded day(s).
- GOLDEN CITY DITCH (0700542) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.2 cfs (max 49.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 11.1 cfs across 63001 recorded day(s).
- MANHART DITCH (0700614) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.0 cfs (max 17.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 9.8 cfs across 32584 recorded day(s).
- CORT GRAVES HUGHES DITCH (0700551) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 7.0 cfs (max 7.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.6 cfs across 18023 recorded day(s).
- APEX GULCH FEEDER D (0700717) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 6.1 cfs (max 6.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.0 cfs across 6706 recorded day(s).
- OUELETTE DITCH (0700632) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 6.0 cfs (max 11.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.1 cfs across 18892 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FARMERS HIGHLINE CANAL (0700569) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 121 | 5760.2 | 0 | yes |
| CHURCH DITCH (0700540) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 66 | 1298.4 | 0 | yes |
| CROKE CANAL (0700553) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 82 | 1132.7 | 0 | yes |
| 0701000 DWR↗ | 1998-12-30 | 1 | 1000.0 | 0 | — |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN DITCH (0700652) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 51 | 598.6 | 0 | — |
| AGRICULTURAL DITCH (0700502) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 59 | 539.6 | 910 | yes |
| 0700873 DWR↗ | 1860-05-16 | 39 | 519.3 | 0 | — |
| CHURCH DITCH RALSTON CREEK DIVERSION (0700942) DWR↗ | 1860-08-31 | 8 | 480.2 | 0 | — |
| FARMERS HIGHLINE RALSTON CREEK (0700872) DWR↗ | 1860-08-31 | 24 | 478.5 | 0 | — |
| 0700871 DWR↗ | 1860-05-16 | 40 | 469.6 | 0 | — |
| 0700648 DWR↗ | 1906-10-17 | 1 | 318.0 | 0 | — |
| 0700877 DWR↗ | 1930-01-01 | 1 | 212.0 | 0 | yes |
| COORS INDUSTRIAL DITCH (0700725) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 25 | 190.3 | 0 | — |
| CLEAR CR PLATTE RIVER D (0700547) DWR↗ | 1860-02-25 | 60 | 133.2 | 4368 | yes |
| COLO AGRICULTURAL D (0700549) DWR↗ | 1861-11-01 | 7 | 112.6 | 0 | — |
Recent inventory & legal-document changes
- 2026-10-10 — call set: SOUTH FLAT DITCH (39707)
- 2026-10-10 — call set: STERLING IRR CO DITCH 1 (39706)
- 2026-10-10 — call released: 39612
- 2026-10-09 — call released: 39680
- 2026-10-09 — call set: SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT WATERTON (39697)
- 2026-10-09 — call set: CHATFIELD RESERVOIR (39698)
- 2026-10-09 — call released: 39678
- 2026-10-08 — call set: TRUE WEBSTER DITCH (39693)
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
24 applications in the 2026-08 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 2026-10-31 (17 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 24 filings, with excerpts
| Case | What it asks | County | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
2026CW3039
|
— | — | CASE NO. 20 26CW3039; STATE ENGINEER AND WATER DIV 2 ENGINEER vs. ANDREW STOREY – Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Penalties, and Costs. This case is being listed in the resume to account for the case number in consecutive order. ---------------------… |
2026CW3040
|
plan for augmentation, new underground right | — | CASE NO. 2026CW3040 , Water Division 2 and CASE NO. 2026CW3135, Water Division 1; JANICE L DUNCAN, 6440 Highline Place, Colorado Springs, CO, 80908 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorney: Philip E. Lopez, Eric… |
2026CW3088
|
plan for augmentation | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3088 NORTH RANCH, LLC, c/o Robert L. Myers, 944 Cheyenne Blvd., Colorado Springs, CO 80905; Please direct all correspondence concerning the application to: Ryan W. Farr, Sedona E. Chavez, Monson, Cummins, Shohet & Farr, LLC, 13511 Northgate E… |
2026CW3089
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 20 26CW3089 ROBERSON LIVING TRUST, c/o Tamara Roberson -George, Rex Roberson, Kevin Roberson, Co-Trustees, 18235 Black Forest Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80908; Please direct all correspondence concerning this application to: David M. Shohet, and Se… |
2026CW3119
|
change of water right, plan for augmentation, new storage right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3119 SHARON AND MARK WEATHERFORD, 12328 S. State Hwy 83, Franktown, CO 80116. (Forward all pleadings and correspondence to Chris D. Cummins and Sedona E. Chavez, Monson, Cummins, Shohet & Farr, LLC, 13511 Northgate Estates Dr., Ste. 250, Colo… |
2026CW3120
4404471 |
reasonable diligence | THE CITY AND | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3120 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS (“Denver Water” or “Applicant”), 1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204. Jessica R. Brody, General Counsel, Daniel J. Arnold, James M. Wittler, … |
2026CW3121
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3121 (2018CW3222)… |
2026CW3122
|
plan for augmentation, new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3122 DOUBLE S CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN LLC, ATTN: Scott Berry, 42631 Sager Lane, Parker, CO, 80138. APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM NONTRIBUTARY AND NOT-NONTRIBUTARY SOURCES AND APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION, IN THE NONTRIBUTAR… |
2026CW3123
|
reasonable diligence | THE CITY AND | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3123 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS (“Denver Water” or “Applicant”), 1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204. Jessica R. Brody, General Counsel, Daniel J. Arnold, James M. Wittler, … |
2026CW3124
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute, new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3124 WESTERN EQUIPMENT AND TRUCK, INC. , 2055 1 st Ave., Greeley, CO 80631, 970 -353-6682. P. Andrew Jones, Law Office of P. Andrew Jones, 1213 Founders Circle, Windsor, CO 80550, 970 -297-0570, ajones@pandrewjones.com. APPLICATION TO MAKE CO… |
2026CW3125
0600538 0600565 0600576 |
reasonable diligence | EASONABLE DILIGENCE IN BOULDER | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3125 (90CW108) (99CW125) (12CW72) (20CW3017) APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN BOULDER COUNTY . 1. Name, Mailing Address, Phone Number, and E -mail Address of Applicant . CITY OF LAFAYETTE , c/o Cari Bischoff, Water Resources… |
2026CW3126
0815262 0815263 0815264 |
reasonable diligence, make absolute | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3126 MARY GUENZEL CHARITABLE TRUST, P.O. Box 9, Woodland Park, Colorado 80866; Please direct all correspondence concerning this application to: Ryan W. Farr, Monson, Cummins, Shohet & Farr, LLC, 13511 Northgate Estates Drive, Suite 250, Color… |
2026CW3127
|
new underground right | UPPER LARAMIE AQUIFER IN WELD | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3127 THE CITY OF GREELEY, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER AND SEWER BOARD, AND THE COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS. APPLICATION FOR NONTRIBUTARY UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS IN THE UPPER LARAMIE AQUIFER IN WELD COUNTY. I. Name, mailing… |
2026CW3128
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3128 Applicant. CHRIS DINSDALE, P.O. Box 1807, Sterling, CO 80751, 970-522-9052 with all correspondence connected herewith being sent to Applicant’s Counsel, David P. Jones, Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP., 5245 Ronald Regan Bl… |
2026CW3129
|
plan for augmentation, new underground right | PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION IN ELBERT | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3129 VANCE ROBERT ANDRUS & TONI COLLEEN ANDRUS , 6414 Sherman Peak, Castle Rock, Colorado 80108. APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM NONTRIBUTARY AND NOT-NONTRIBUTARY SOURCES AND APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION IN ELBERT COUNTY . … |
2026CW3130
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW 3130 THE CITY OF GREELEY, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER AND SEWER BOARD c/o Leah Hubbard, Deputy Director of Water Resources, 1001 – 11th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Greeley, Colorado 80631, leah.hubbard@greeleygov.com, (970) 350-9811. Please send … |
2026CW3131
|
reasonable diligence | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3131 CITY OF LOVELAND , Colorado (“Loveland”), c/o Noah Cecil, Assistant City Attorney, 500 East Third Street, #330, Loveland, Colorado 80537, Telephone: (970) 962 - 2434. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN LARIMER AND WELD CO… |
2026CW3132
|
— | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3132 Applicants. THE CENTRAL COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT AND THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT SUBDISTRICT OF THE CENTRAL COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT , 3209 West 28 th Street, Greeley, Colorado, 80634, 970-330-4540 with all future co… |
2026CW3133
|
reasonable diligence | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3133 CHELEY LAND, LLC AND CHELEY COLORADO CAMPS, LLC (f.k.a. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc.) , 601 Steele Street, P.O. Box 6525, Denver, CO 80206. c/o Karen L. Henderson, Bushong & Holleman PC, 1966 13th Street, Suite 270, Boulder, CO 80302; (30… |
2026CW3139
|
change of water right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3139 ALBERT WENDELL NELSON REVOCABLE TRUST c/o Wendell Nelson, Trustee 5537 N. County Road 9 Fort Collins, CO 80524 303 -921-4750 Sally Jean Nelson Revocable Trust c/o Wendell Nelson, Trustee 5537 N. County Road 9 Fort Collins, CO 80524 303 -… |
2026CW3140
|
plan for augmentation | PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION IN ELBERT | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3140 DAVID JOE KRAXNER III, 754 Highway 86, Elizabeth, CO, 80107. Philip E. Lopez, Eric K. Trout, Fairfield and Woods, P.C., 1801 California St, Suite 2600, Denver, CO, 80202. APPLICATION FOR A PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION IN ELBERT COUNTY. Subject … |
2026CW3141
|
plan for augmentation | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3141 KELTY COLORADO FAMILY LLLP, C/o Bruff Shea, P.O. Box 21, Franktown, Colorado 80166. Please direct all pleadings and correspondence to Applicants counsel: Michael A. Kopp, Trout Raley PC, 1120 Lincoln St., Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80203, (3… |
2026CW3142
|
new underground right | — | CASE NUMBER 2026CW3142 1. Name, address, and telephone number of Applicant and Landowner: 1.1. Applicant and Landowner: CAP LAND LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 47 (“CAP Land”) c/o Lena Vander Laan P.O. Box 105 Henderson, CO 80640 Please direct all c… |
2026CW9
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute | LARIMER | CASE NUMBER 2026CW9 SPRING44 DISTILLING, INC. (“Spring44”), 505 West 66th Street, Loveland, Colorado 80538, Telephone: (970) 445 -7109. APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND CLAIM TO MAKE CERTAIN AMOUNTS ABSOLUTE IN LARIMER COUNTY. 2. Lindauer S… |
Active substitute water supply plans in this district
Temporary State Engineer approvals to divert out of priority (37-92-308 / 37-90-137). A structure operating under one behaves differently under a call than its decreed rights alone suggest — the priority tables above don't know about these; this list does. Source: DWR’s active-SWSP register, refreshed nightly.
| Plan | Type | Status | Expires | Structure | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPW GOLDEN GATE CANYON STATE PARK | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | 2027-03-31 | 0702546 | plan file |
| SMITH FAMILY PONDS | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | 2027-03-31 | 0702551 | plan file |
| BLACK HAWK CITY OF FOUR MILE GULCH WELLS | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | 2027-08-31 | 0702540 | plan file |
| CPW REVEREND'S RIDGE CAMPGROUND WELLS | 37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION | Approved | 2027-08-31 | — | plan file |
| MARTIN MARIETTA CLEAR CREEK DIVERSION | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | 2027-08-31 | 0702549 | plan file |
| CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY - SHWAYDER POND | 37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION | Pending | — | 0702840 | plan file |
| CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY LEE STEWART AND ESKINS DITCH | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Withdrawn | — | — | plan file |
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 2026-10-14 · 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 1,709 sampling stations in this district's watershed (Clear 10190004), of which 69 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 (44), Colorado River Watch (22), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (2). Most-sampled groups: Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Nutrient, Information. 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 ↗
27 community systems touch this district. 2 carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record. EPA sampled 10 of them for PFAS in 2023–25; none had PFOA or PFOS at or above the 2024 limit.
| System | Serves | EPA record | PFAS (UCMR 5) | Lead, latest 90th pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NORTH LINCOLN WSD | 1,000 | 1 open health-based | not sampled | — |
| ST MARYS GLACIER WSD | 451 | 1 open health-based | not sampled | 0.003 mg/L |
| DENVER WATER BOARD | 1,287,000 | 11 of 12 quarters with a violation | none detected | 0.0036 mg/L |
| WESTMINSTER CITY OF | 202,078 | 2 of 12 quarters with a violation | none detected | 0.0013 mg/L |
| ARVADA CITY OF | 171,610 | 2 of 12 quarters with a violation | none detected | 0.0031 mg/L |
| CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL MAPLE GROVE | 81,400 | clean, last 12 quarters | 3 detected, under the limits | 0.0037 mg/L |
| GOLDEN CITY OF | 38,288 | clean, last 12 quarters | none detected | 0.0 mg/L |
| CRESTVIEW WSD | 23,756 | clean, last 12 quarters | not sampled | — |
| WHEAT RIDGE WATER DISTRICT | 20,000 | clean, last 12 quarters | not sampled | — |
| BLACK HAWK CITY OF | 15,167 | clean, last 12 quarters | none detected | 0.002 mg/L |
and 17 more; the full directory filters by district.
EPA's record carries violations and lead/copper percentiles; nitrate and disinfection by-product results are not in it. UCMR 5 samples are monitoring, not compliance, and the 2024 PFOA/PFOS limits equal its reporting limit, so any detection of those two is at or above them.
Every assessed stretch below is drawn on the district map above: turn on the Impaired waters layer (red is on the list, grey is assessed and attaining; click a stretch for its causes).
Water quality
31 of 49 assessed segments in this basin are on Colorado's impaired-waters list (2024 assessment), most often metals.
Where these stretches are
Tap a stretch for its causes. A named creek appears more than once because CDPHE assesses it in separate units, so the map shows where a finding starts and stops rather than colouring a whole creek at once.
On the impaired-waters list
Each entry is one CDPHE assessment unit — a named, mapped stretch of stream, not the whole creek at once, which is why a single named creek can appear more than once with different findings above and below a tributary or discharge.
- Chase Gulch, mainstem and all tributaries
- Chicago Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Clear Creek, all tributaries
- Clear Creek, all tributaries
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Clear Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Clear Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Fall River, mainstem
- Gilson Gulch, mainstem and tributaries
- Gregory Gulch, Russell Gulch, and Silver Gulch, mainstem and all tributaries
- Leavenworth Creek, mainstem
- North Clear Creek, all tributaries
- North Clear Creek, mainstem
- North Empire Creek
- Ralston Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Ralston Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Silver Creek
- South Clear Creek, mainstem
- South Clear Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Trail Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Turkey Gulch
- Virginia Canyon
- West Fork of Clear Creek
16 segments meeting standards, 2 not yet assessed
- Beaver Brook
- Clear Creek, all tributaries
- Clear Creek, all tributaries
- Clear Creek, mainstem and all tributaries
- Fall River, all tributaries
- Hoop Creek
- Kearney Gulch, Grizzly Gulch
- Lena Gulch, mainstem and all tributaries
- Leyden Creek, Van Bibber Creek and Little Dry Creek, mainstems
- Lion Creek
- Mad Creek
- North Clear Creek, Four Mile Gulch, and Eureka Gulch, mainstem and all tributaries
- Soda Creek
- West Clear Creek, all tributaries
- West Clear Creek, mainstem
- West Clear Creek, mainstem
- Clear Creek, all tributaries
- Woods Creek, mainstem
Source: EPA ATTAINS (Colorado Regulation 93 / Clean Water Act §303(d) list); state.co.us hosts the same assessment, ATTAINS is EPA's public mirror of it.. A segment being “Not Supporting” means it fails Colorado’s water-quality standard for the stated use (aquatic life, recreation, drinking-water supply...) for the stated cause — a legal, periodic finding, independent of whether any sensor happens to be deployed there right now.
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…
Snowpack — 1 SNOTEL site report here. Runoff outlook — Clear Ck at Golden: even odds of at least 52 kAF over 06-01 to 09-30 — 52% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Full snow & runoff picture — charts, forecast history and how the forecasts have verified →
Sites, exceedance bands and sources
| SNOTEL site | Elev (ft) | SWE (in) | Median (in) | % of median | Typical peak |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loveland Basin | 11410 | 0.2 | 0.8 | — | May 2 (24.4 in) |
Clear Ck at Golden — 06-01 to 09-30 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 48 | 52 | 56 | 63 | 100 |
Snow-water equivalent and medians (1991–2020) from NRCS SNOTEL; seasonal volume forecasts from the NRCS National Water and Climate Center. Sites and forecast points are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — snowpack that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district. Toggle the Snow chip on the map above to see the sites.
Topology cross-check: 2 parent disagreements, 10 sizable streams not on this network (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 11 streams, 9 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| South Fork Ralston Creek | the mainstem | Ralston Creek |
| Coal Creek | the mainstem | Boulder Creek |
Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:
Beaver Brook (11 mi) · Lena Gulch (10 mi) · Tucker Gulch (9 mi) · Little Dry Creek (9 mi) · Mill Creek (9 mi) · Guy Gulch (8 mi) · Elk Creek (6 mi) · Soda Creek (5 mi)