South Platte Cheesman to Denver Gage

Division 1 · Water District 8 · As of 2026-10-09 05:05 MDT · 6 days ago

Who may take water from the South Platte Cheesman to Denver Gage, 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.

Live · machine-built

South Platte Cheesman to Denver Gage on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 8 · 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.

69% of normal flow, week of 2026-09-21

3 calls the record places on it, 6 unsettled

The South Platte River is below normal for late September -- 69% of normal flow. 3 calls stand against it right now; the most senior right calling dates to 1863. DWR's statements do not settle whether 6 more calls reach it.

Schematic

Historical

Reconstruct conditions as of

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 2026-10-08 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 1 ranked gage are running at a median 99% of their own long-term norm for this window — 1 below a typical year, 0 at or above. Driest relative to its record: SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT LAST CHANCE DIVERSION NEAR KASSLER, ranking 4th lowest of 9 years.

How this comparison is made

Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-10-08, 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 19:51 from 72 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. The series is each gage's annual mean flow in cfs (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 72 gages with enough record, 4 are trending down and 4 up, and 6 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Cherry Creek at Denver, its annual mean flow changing +3.60 cfs per decade (+13.6% of its median annual flow) over 68 years (p<0.0001). The other 62 show no clear signal either way.

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
▸ Cherry Creek at Denver CHEDENCO	↑ increasing	+3.60 cfs +13.6%	p<0.001	68	~1982
▸ South Platte River at Waterton PLAWATCO	↓ decreasing	-9.16 cfs -7.3%	p<0.001	100	~1987
▸ Cherry Creek below Cherry Creek Lake CHEBELCO	↑ increasing	+3.38 cfs +45.0%	p<0.001	73	~1982
▸ Plum Creek near Louviers PLULOUCO	↑ increasing	+9.49 cfs +34.1%	p=0.004	44	—
▸ South Platte River below Strontia Springs PLASTRCO	↓ decreasing	-24.10 cfs -14.0%	p=0.015	43	—
▸ ⚠️ Cherry Creek near Melvin CHEMELCO	↓ decreasing	-6.13 cfs -74.3%	p=0.032	29	~1949
▸ South Platte River at Englewood PLAENGCO	↓ decreasing	-28.86 cfs -16.9%	p=0.043	43	—
▸ Cherry Creek near Parker CHERRYCO	↑ increasing	+1.74 cfs +16.8%	p=0.044	34	—
▸ South Platte River at Denver PLADENCO	no clear trend	-7.56 cfs -2.6%	p=0.058	131	~1949
▸ South Platte River at South Platte PLASPLCO	no clear trend	+5.90 cfs +1.4%	p=0.101	127	~1978

⚠️ 1 gage 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.

62 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).

2 of those show a significant trend once extended backwards from a retired neighbour's record: So. Platte River below Brush Cr. near Trumbull (102 yr, increasing); South Platte River below Union Ave, at Englewood,C (40 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. 51 gage(s) and 157 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1973. 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	2	0
1900s	2	0
1910s	2	0
1920s	2	0
1930s	3	0
1940s	8	0
1950s	9	17
1960s	9	14
1970s	7	113
1980s	12	80
1990s	16	72
2000s	18	53
2010s	24	68
2020s	49	168

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 3% of 3820 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.

Groundwater now has its own tab: 3026 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 47 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 101-year window with full coverage (1926–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 81% 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 2026-09-25)

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.

TWO FORKS RES (diversion): -93.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
AURORA INLET PL (diversion): -93.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
AURORA PL (diversion): -93.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
DENVER FOOTHILLS PL 26 (diversion): -93.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
COLEMAN PL (diversion): -78.6 cfs (33% of that reach's correction)
WILLRICH SPRING (return): -78.6 cfs (33% of that reach's correction)
LUCKY JACK SPRING (return): -78.6 cfs (33% of that reach's correction)
DENVER CONDUIT NO 20 (diversion): -32.1 cfs (100% of that reach's correction)
ARAPAHOE POWER PLANT (diversion): +18.4 cfs (100% of that reach's correction)
ISBELL SPRING 1 (return): +9.8 cfs (17% 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	current	newest gage reading is 3 day(s) old
diversion record	expected-lag	newest diversion record is 346 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	3% of schematic structures have data

72 gage(s) / 571,051 daily values (1895-07-01–2026-10-08); 538 structure(s) with diversion records; 12310 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 ↗

36,122 water-level measurements across 3026 monitored well(s) — 735 alluvial, 1430 bedrock — plus 160 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 179 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 86 declining, 17 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ CASTLE PINES A-1	bedrock	-307.81	28 yr	0.0
▸ DB-106 CPNMD A-2	bedrock	-266.68	32 yr	0.0
▸ DB-106 CPNMD A-3	bedrock	-258.69	32 yr	0.0
▸ DB-113 DEN TECH CNTR, SOUTH	bedrock	-256.67	31 yr	0.0
▸ JORDAN WELL	bedrock	-255.88	21 yr	0.0375
▸ DB-118 CASTLE ROCK WELL 14	bedrock	-253.52	35 yr	0.0003
▸ SC00606624ADA1	unknown	-251.12	22 yr	0.0006
▸ DB-113 DEN TECH CNTR, NORTH	bedrock	-235.24	31 yr	0.0002

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.

56,424 well permits on file — not decreed rights

51% household or domestic use

248 ft median depth, 34,134 wells reporting

51% are constructed wells; 8% 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

30,115 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1900 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 1992, and the busiest year was 1972 with 1,474. The district’s 16,146 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 56,424 above counts every permit on file here; 10,163 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.

Show the monitoring holes too (16,146; the scale changes)

water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown 9 issued before 1950 are in the table, not the bars

The counts by year, as a table

Located well permits with an issue date in this district, by issue year. Monitoring holes are the two DWR monitoring categories; water-supply is everything else.
Year	Issued	Monitoring holes	Water-supply	Issued through that year
1900	1	0	1	1
1901	1	0	1	2
1908	1	0	1	3
1909	1	0	1	4
1926	1	1	0	5
1928	1	0	1	6
1934	1	0	1	7
1938	1	0	1	8
1942	1	0	1	9
1952	1	0	1	10
1953	27	0	27	37
1954	85	0	85	122
1955	179	0	179	301
1956	123	0	123	424
1957	115	0	115	539
1958	77	0	77	616
1959	93	0	93	709
1960	169	0	169	878
1961	68	0	68	946
1962	71	0	71	1,017
1963	128	0	128	1,145
1964	101	0	101	1,246
1965	79	0	79	1,325
1966	127	1	126	1,452
1967	101	0	101	1,553
1968	148	0	148	1,701
1969	178	0	178	1,879
1970	170	1	169	2,049
1971	293	0	293	2,342
1972	1,474	0	1,474	3,816
1973	550	0	550	4,366
1974	260	0	260	4,626
1975	187	0	187	4,813
1976	292	0	292	5,105
1977	596	0	596	5,701
1978	1,036	0	1,036	6,737
1979	904	0	904	7,641
1980	581	4	577	8,222
1981	605	0	605	8,827
1982	474	2	472	9,301
1983	674	4	670	9,975
1984	568	2	566	10,543
1985	874	235	639	11,417
1986	896	55	841	12,313
1987	714	142	572	13,027
1988	651	202	449	13,678
1989	692	253	439	14,370
1990	769	314	455	15,139
1991	1,182	617	565	16,321
1992	1,159	510	649	17,480
1993	1,462	607	855	18,942
1994	1,464	663	801	20,406
1995	1,253	474	779	21,659
1996	1,355	546	809	23,014
1997	1,031	386	645	24,045
1998	1,201	431	770	25,246
1999	1,484	770	714	26,730
2000	1,278	617	661	28,008
2001	1,238	626	612	29,246
2002	1,252	703	549	30,498
2003	1,531	941	590	32,029
2004	1,400	941	459	33,429
2005	1,194	663	531	34,623
2006	640	201	439	35,263
2007	467	134	333	35,730
2008	351	93	258	36,081
2009	281	101	180	36,362
2010	298	103	195	36,660
2011	421	213	208	37,081
2012	575	310	265	37,656
2013	694	381	313	38,350
2014	805	474	331	39,155
2015	572	323	249	39,727
2016	844	511	333	40,571
2017	746	370	376	41,317
2018	697	325	372	42,014
2019	589	241	348	42,603
2020	708	390	318	43,311
2021	790	322	468	44,101
2022	619	272	347	44,720
2023	368	118	250	45,088
2024	368	163	205	45,456
2025	504	255	249	45,960
2026	301	135	166	46,261

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

40 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (28,127 permits in all; the 24 most-drilled are drawn, every one is in the table). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 2,700 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. Columns are drawn to 3,000 ft at most; 1 band here runs deeper and is drawn to the bottom edge with an arrow, the numbers as filed in the table: T6S R67W more than one named (7 permits, 90th percentile 9,393 ft). 15 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.

T11S R66W
3,194 · 55% here

T7S R65W
2,116 · 53% here

T6S R70W
2,044 · 66% here

T6S R65W
1,938 · 63% here

T6S R66W
1,504

T8S R65W
1,430 · 67% here

T5S R66W
1,352 · 92% here

T12S R69W
1,102 · 69% here

T8S R67W
1,043

T4S R69W
971 · 78% here

T8S R68W
862

T5S R68W
825 · 94% here

T3S R68W
746 · 40% here

T7S R66W
706

T6S R68W
671

T4S R67W
606 · 78% here

T10S R67W
600

T8S R66W
581

T6S R67W
566

T7S R67W
531

T7S R68W
524

T9S R65W
464 · 56% here

T10S R66W
463

T4S R68W
448

unnamed alluvium Dawson Denver Arapahoe Laramie-Fox Hills fractured crystalline more than one named other named faint = where the permits naming it stopped (10th–90th pct) · solid = their screens · tick = median · arrow = runs deeper than the scale · ft below ground as filed

Every township here, as a table

Water-supply permits by PLSS township and the aquifer named on them, where at least 5 filed a depth: percentiles of the depth drilled to and of the screen top and bottom (where at least 5 filed a screen), feet below ground as filed. The permit file’s view, not a geologic map.
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
T11S R66W 6th PM	55%	unnamed	446	170 / 300 / 460	100 / 200 / 319	200 / 300 / 460
T11S R66W 6th PM	55%	Dawson	2,650	240 / 330 / 500	100 / 200 / 320	240 / 320 / 500
T11S R66W 6th PM	55%	Denver	75	382 / 600 / 1,275	282 / 450 / 800	388 / 580 / 1,248
T11S R66W 6th PM	55%	Arapahoe	19	1,162 / 1,754 / 2,330	658 / 1,185 / 1,903	868 / 1,535 / 2,270
T7S R65W 6th PM	53%	Dawson	1,700	248 / 365 / 540	165 / 262 / 410	260 / 380 / 560
T7S R65W 6th PM	53%	unnamed	346	232 / 368 / 482	180 / 260 / 382	281 / 383 / 545
T7S R65W 6th PM	53%	Denver	62	833 / 995 / 1,487	628 / 808 / 896	848 / 960 / 1,094
T7S R65W 6th PM	53%	Arapahoe	6	1,184 / 2,093 / 2,194	—	—
T6S R70W 6th PM	66%	unnamed	2,020	80 / 320 / 705	46 / 200 / 502	165 / 380 / 730
T6S R70W 6th PM	66%	fractured crystalline	22	204 / 676 / 1,283	132 / 300 / 566	280 / 652 / 1,072
T6S R65W 6th PM	63%	unnamed	247	103 / 337 / 579	100 / 270 / 500	204 / 380 / 585
T6S R65W 6th PM	63%	Dawson	1,519	218 / 350 / 580	145 / 240 / 480	224 / 355 / 590
T6S R65W 6th PM	63%	Denver	163	520 / 680 / 907	430 / 556 / 690	510 / 685 / 898
T6S R65W 6th PM	63%	Arapahoe	8	1,690 / 1,830 / 2,118	1,232 / 1,430 / 1,695	1,549 / 1,809 / 2,000
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	alluvium	13	42 / 60 / 75	20 / 26 / 49	51 / 56 / 69
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	328	36 / 172 / 536	20 / 182 / 452	44 / 299 / 589
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	1,002	187 / 321 / 565	125 / 252 / 439	200 / 340 / 576
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	Denver	102	451 / 600 / 1,223	361 / 425 / 627	462 / 582 / 837
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	43	1,652 / 1,761 / 1,910	1,109 / 1,278 / 1,544	1,616 / 1,700 / 1,956
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	more than one named	5	950 / 1,872 / 1,883	—	—
T6S R66W 6th PM	100%	Laramie-Fox Hills	11	2,342 / 2,401 / 2,450	2,118 / 2,140 / 2,238	2,360 / 2,390 / 2,497
T8S R65W 6th PM	67%	unnamed	599	207 / 302 / 440	140 / 215 / 322	228 / 310 / 455
T8S R65W 6th PM	67%	Dawson	815	280 / 400 / 700	180 / 275 / 580	281 / 400 / 705
T8S R65W 6th PM	67%	Denver	12	455 / 1,004 / 1,240	194 / 710 / 942	342 / 980 / 1,205
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	alluvium	9	54 / 55 / 86	—	—
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	unnamed	370	54 / 300 / 626	32 / 280 / 480	55 / 349 / 600
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	Dawson	342	230 / 300 / 423	154 / 226 / 322	232 / 302 / 420
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	Denver	546	305 / 440 / 612	210 / 338 / 474	322 / 440 / 618
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	Arapahoe	52	1,312 / 1,677 / 1,864	1,025 / 1,192 / 1,326	1,452 / 1,643 / 1,759
T5S R66W 6th PM	92%	Laramie-Fox Hills	31	2,121 / 2,322 / 2,470	1,839 / 1,969 / 2,088	2,056 / 2,296 / 2,397
T12S R69W 6th PM	69%	unnamed	1,094	74 / 200 / 500	40 / 160 / 420	90 / 250 / 500
T12S R69W 6th PM	69%	fractured crystalline	7	200 / 300 / 524	—	—
T8S R67W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	401	73 / 415 / 760	41 / 323 / 602	69 / 460 / 790
T8S R67W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	197	293 / 504 / 816	199 / 378 / 668	287 / 500 / 820
T8S R67W 6th PM	100%	Denver	418	436 / 621 / 900	296 / 462 / 666	432 / 621 / 886
T8S R67W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	23	1,469 / 1,860 / 2,001	1,008 / 1,352 / 1,548	1,385 / 1,830 / 1,932
T4S R69W 6th PM	78%	unnamed	884	40 / 100 / 505	13 / 60 / 402	36 / 125 / 600
T4S R69W 6th PM	78%	Dawson	7	100 / 150 / 343	—	—
T4S R69W 6th PM	78%	Denver	40	26 / 260 / 473	18 / 105 / 285	36 / 240 / 465
T4S R69W 6th PM	78%	Arapahoe	30	460 / 511 / 745	274 / 380 / 559	428 / 522 / 770
T4S R69W 6th PM	78%	Laramie-Fox Hills	6	1,680 / 1,720 / 1,760	—	—
T8S R68W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	45	226 / 364 / 560	160 / 268 / 394	300 / 373 / 560
T8S R68W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	521	140 / 368 / 565	80 / 258 / 390	210 / 395 / 590
T8S R68W 6th PM	100%	Denver	277	320 / 480 / 658	162 / 340 / 470	323 / 485 / 660
T8S R68W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	10	627 / 1,056 / 1,100	522 / 714 / 834	627 / 1,056 / 1,100
T5S R68W 6th PM	94%	alluvium	24	20 / 40 / 62	10 / 25 / 35	36 / 45 / 58
T5S R68W 6th PM	94%	unnamed	685	27 / 100 / 1,009	10 / 36 / 700	30 / 60 / 1,052
T5S R68W 6th PM	94%	Denver	22	196 / 380 / 1,113	136 / 182 / 816	205 / 370 / 1,147
T5S R68W 6th PM	94%	Arapahoe	81	398 / 900 / 1,189	242 / 660 / 940	400 / 908 / 1,186
T5S R68W 6th PM	94%	Laramie-Fox Hills	10	606 / 1,694 / 2,057	192 / 1,208 / 1,688	408 / 1,400 / 1,937
T3S R68W 6th PM	40%	other named	25	18 / 32 / 43	5 / 15 / 24	16 / 29 / 40
T3S R68W 6th PM	40%	alluvium	15	25 / 42 / 94	14 / 20 / 31	22 / 42 / 58
T3S R68W 6th PM	40%	unnamed	641	22 / 45 / 490	5 / 20 / 340	17 / 38 / 500
T3S R68W 6th PM	40%	Denver	10	98 / 465 / 705	16 / 200 / 271	92 / 560 / 670
T3S R68W 6th PM	40%	Arapahoe	52	520 / 700 / 804	227 / 460 / 566	484 / 700 / 775
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	alluvium	9	52 / 63 / 73	32 / 36 / 48	52 / 61 / 69
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	145	46 / 138 / 665	27 / 202 / 580	55 / 320 / 665
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	Dawson	506	230 / 419 / 774	130 / 288 / 620	235 / 423 / 773
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	more than one named	5	668 / 860 / 877	—	—
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	Denver	14	1,006 / 1,488 / 1,680	612 / 718 / 974	945 / 1,454 / 1,566
T7S R66W 6th PM	99%	Arapahoe	25	1,846 / 2,020 / 2,238	1,407 / 1,539 / 1,779	1,739 / 1,961 / 2,178
T6S R68W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	230	95 / 326 / 700	80 / 219 / 484	188 / 344 / 700
T6S R68W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	37	215 / 400 / 503	139 / 252 / 346	217 / 392 / 508
T6S R68W 6th PM	100%	Denver	199	340 / 440 / 645	164 / 285 / 456	340 / 440 / 617
T6S R68W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	179	480 / 720 / 1,319	245 / 498 / 705	480 / 701 / 946
T6S R68W 6th PM	100%	Laramie-Fox Hills	23	1,143 / 1,750 / 2,302	984 / 1,533 / 2,115	1,161 / 1,688 / 2,271
T4S R67W 6th PM	78%	alluvium	31	27 / 27 / 64	18 / 25 / 47	28 / 47 / 57
T4S R67W 6th PM	78%	unnamed	555	20 / 53 / 315	8 / 22 / 81	18 / 48 / 180
T4S R67W 6th PM	78%	Denver	7	114 / 280 / 393	50 / 180 / 190	90 / 330 / 392
T4S R67W 6th PM	78%	Arapahoe	7	760 / 980 / 1,587	709 / 850 / 1,053	794 / 980 / 1,427
T10S R67W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	273	105 / 305 / 542	72 / 200 / 400	154 / 355 / 574
T10S R67W 6th PM	99%	Dawson	279	240 / 410 / 600	87 / 242 / 400	240 / 414 / 540
T10S R67W 6th PM	99%	Denver	39	396 / 680 / 1,145	330 / 510 / 842	410 / 665 / 1,143
T8S R66W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	106	54 / 298 / 1,008	30 / 245 / 731	77 / 360 / 858
T8S R66W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	428	218 / 460 / 824	114 / 338 / 671	240 / 488 / 832
T8S R66W 6th PM	100%	Denver	33	743 / 963 / 1,706	611 / 777 / 994	740 / 963 / 1,609
T8S R66W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	12	1,908 / 2,264 / 2,306	1,470 / 1,650 / 1,702	1,950 / 2,244 / 2,298
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	227	132 / 463 / 684	99 / 360 / 522	140 / 506 / 678
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	213	328 / 544 / 650	211 / 400 / 493	322 / 544 / 650
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	Denver	72	482 / 766 / 1,391	349 / 440 / 686	480 / 700 / 1,226
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	35	1,750 / 1,877 / 2,126	1,206 / 1,414 / 1,622	1,707 / 1,877 / 2,117
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	more than one named	7	1,196 / 1,929 / 9,393 (off the drawn scale)	685 / 951 / 1,146	1,027 / 1,594 / 1,894
T6S R67W 6th PM	100%	Laramie-Fox Hills	9	2,284 / 2,382 / 2,642	—	—
T7S R67W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	250	86 / 364 / 800	109 / 287 / 574	220 / 402 / 800
T7S R67W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	161	260 / 554 / 827	142 / 404 / 616	260 / 570 / 809
T7S R67W 6th PM	100%	Denver	79	509 / 1,085 / 1,745	303 / 492 / 961	488 / 777 / 1,335
T7S R67W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	34	1,706 / 1,898 / 2,253	1,266 / 1,390 / 1,775	1,690 / 1,821 / 2,239
T7S R68W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	19	215 / 290 / 446	148 / 206 / 254	238 / 286 / 447
T7S R68W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	207	73 / 295 / 588	29 / 205 / 363	150 / 309 / 556
T7S R68W 6th PM	100%	Denver	218	309 / 458 / 623	140 / 277 / 420	300 / 450 / 606
T7S R68W 6th PM	100%	Laramie-Fox Hills	6	514 / 653 / 933	228 / 447 / 765	499 / 601 / 972
T7S R68W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	66	578 / 770 / 1,318	365 / 555 / 855	552 / 750 / 1,250
T9S R65W 6th PM	56%	unnamed	118	54 / 237 / 380	74 / 182 / 296	127 / 257 / 414
T9S R65W 6th PM	56%	Dawson	345	240 / 340 / 428	120 / 223 / 317	241 / 341 / 440
T10S R66W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	123	161 / 300 / 558	80 / 192 / 357	190 / 300 / 586
T10S R66W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	324	175 / 337 / 580	92 / 203 / 373	204 / 360 / 560
T10S R66W 6th PM	100%	Denver	16	910 / 1,070 / 1,735	780 / 873 / 1,011	910 / 1,070 / 1,722
T4S R68W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	422	21 / 41 / 300	7 / 15 / 35	15 / 30 / 60
T4S R68W 6th PM	98%	Denver	9	55 / 55 / 792	10 / 10 / 96	55 / 55 / 816
T4S R68W 6th PM	98%	Arapahoe	11	830 / 856 / 1,115	313 / 430 / 729	774 / 853 / 1,244
T6S R69W 6th PM	98%	alluvium	11	40 / 48 / 55	9 / 15 / 24	18 / 28 / 42
T6S R69W 6th PM	98%	Arapahoe	22	104 / 146 / 396	25 / 46 / 88	105 / 139 / 352
T6S R69W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	369	30 / 200 / 882	10 / 118 / 782	26 / 259 / 1,000
T6S R69W 6th PM	98%	Laramie-Fox Hills	23	607 / 1,067 / 1,146	491 / 915 / 958	577 / 1,071 / 1,162
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	Dawson	13	40 / 74 / 317	20 / 64 / 320	40 / 74 / 430
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	224	65 / 765 / 1,400	13 / 320 / 962	31 / 800 / 1,286
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	Denver	9	757 / 923 / 1,438	234 / 540 / 942	713 / 886 / 1,431
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	more than one named	8	1,010 / 1,415 / 1,640	—	—
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	Arapahoe	70	1,045 / 1,462 / 1,712	742 / 926 / 1,189	1,018 / 1,371 / 1,629
T5S R67W 6th PM	99%	Laramie-Fox Hills	5	2,189 / 2,350 / 2,350	—	—
T9S R67W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	81	70 / 283 / 800	43 / 308 / 620	102 / 570 / 907
T9S R67W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	21	355 / 525 / 810	180 / 475 / 540	312 / 595 / 858
T9S R67W 6th PM	100%	Denver	152	642 / 843 / 1,124	440 / 620 / 726	643 / 825 / 1,105
T9S R67W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	19	960 / 1,665 / 1,836	728 / 1,120 / 1,374	1,050 / 1,585 / 1,712
T7S R70W 6th PM	59%	unnamed	251	50 / 415 / 850	83 / 288 / 594	230 / 480 / 902
T10S R65W 6th PM	76%	unnamed	68	117 / 240 / 415	49 / 170 / 280	118 / 282 / 430
T10S R65W 6th PM	76%	Dawson	165	235 / 395 / 591	114 / 260 / 384	240 / 400 / 587
T10S R65W 6th PM	76%	Denver	5	1,376 / 1,390 / 1,657	—	—
T9S R66W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	28	104 / 310 / 682	38 / 203 / 580	181 / 423 / 694
T9S R66W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	201	200 / 390 / 672	100 / 238 / 580	228 / 399 / 685
T11S R69W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	228	59 / 278 / 540	25 / 200 / 467	100 / 300 / 574
T11S R70W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	180	66 / 200 / 440	30 / 152 / 360	91 / 200 / 420
T11S R70W 6th PM	95%	fractured crystalline	7	272 / 400 / 617	195 / 300 / 500	255 / 350 / 580
T8S R69W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	179	80 / 355 / 621	40 / 207 / 473	173 / 400 / 640
T9S R68W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	137	48 / 90 / 600	16 / 36 / 385	46 / 88 / 594
T9S R68W 6th PM	100%	Dawson	5	438 / 600 / 730	194 / 339 / 486	438 / 600 / 730
T9S R68W 6th PM	100%	Denver	24	552 / 702 / 933	389 / 542 / 630	582 / 740 / 965
T9S R68W 6th PM	100%	other named	6	354 / 712 / 740	132 / 415 / 525	248 / 695 / 730
T9S R68W 6th PM	100%	Arapahoe	9	599 / 927 / 1,114	400 / 575 / 806	680 / 908 / 1,063
T10S R69W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	84	76 / 250 / 441	67 / 218 / 343	140 / 275 / 432
T10S R70W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	75	17 / 220 / 400	40 / 140 / 330	100 / 240 / 400
T9S R70W 6th PM	64%	unnamed	51	10 / 123 / 465	20 / 115 / 352	42 / 206 / 632
T7S R69W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	46	44 / 237 / 803	12 / 60 / 465	52 / 407 / 801
T9S R69W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	4 / 20 / 292	7 / 20 / 162	12 / 140 / 314
T10S R68W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	9	39 / 220 / 361	—	—

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.

Line Corridor

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 ↗

47 reservoir(s) with 34,555 storage measurement(s), 1950–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 49,340 AF across 5 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)
▸ CHATFIELD RESERVOIR (0803514)	31,629	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ BECHTOLD RES (0803601)	16,977	1958-06-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR (0803532)	10,209	2022-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ MITCHELL RES (0803535)	9,999	1978-11-30	—	—	dossier →
▸ STRONTIA SPRINGS DIVERSION DAM (0803983)	7,394	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ SOUTH PLATTE LAKE (0804097)	5,524	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ DERBY RES (0803502)	4,742	1958-06-29	—	—	dossier →
▸ MCLELLAN RES (0803832)	4,012	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

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.

Runoff outlook — South Platte R at South Platte

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 58 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 44% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 29, probably not more than 91. Our own record at this gage shows 110 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 78 replayed seasons (23% typical miss unadjusted vs 21% 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
29	47	58	70	91	131	110

How good are these forecasts here? (1979–2026)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 47 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 25%, with a low bias of 19%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 82% 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 →

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 91st-driest week 39 in 132 years of record at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT DENVER (as of 2026-09-21; this week’s flow sits at the 69th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Jefferson County is 44% in D3 extreme drought (2026-10-06). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 97% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.

Every year since 1895, week by week

Each thin row is a year at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT DENVER; 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 39 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2002 (mean gap 11.3 percentile points; next closest 1908 (13.1), 1934 (15.6)). 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 Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson 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 1950 — 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 (1221 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.

This basin’s droughts, by its own record

Drought	Span	Weeks	Trough percentile	Flows recovered	Water table back
the 2020-22 drought	2020-08-24 → 2021-04-26	35	13th (2020-11-16)	2 weeks	5 yr (110 wells, 53 still below)
the 2018 drought	2018-07-16 → 2019-02-04	29	24th (2018-09-24)	7 weeks	not yet (70 of 140 wells still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2012-08-13 → 2013-04-22	36	18th (2012-10-15)	33 weeks	3 yr (162 wells, 58 still below)
the 2002 drought	2003-11-24 → 2004-05-31	27	25th (2003-12-29)	17 weeks	not yet (61 of 107 wells still below)
the 2002 drought	2002-07-15 → 2003-06-30	50	10th (2002-12-16)	10 weeks	not yet (64 of 100 wells still below)
unnamed dry spell	1994-10-24 → 1995-03-20	21	25th (1994-12-19)	13 weeks	not yet (51 of 94 wells still below)
the 1981 drought	1981-08-10 → 1982-02-01	25	25th (1981-10-05)	35 weeks	3 yr (61 wells, 20 still below)
the 1977 drought	1977-07-18 → 1979-05-28	97	15th (1977-10-31)	5 weeks	6 yr (35 wells, 16 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1969-03-03 → 1969-08-04	22	19th (1969-04-28)	0 weeks	not yet (11 of 16 wells still below)
unnamed dry spell	1966-06-13 → 1967-11-06	73	16th (1967-05-15)	90 weeks	17 yr (21 wells, 10 still below)
the 1963-64 drought	1962-10-15 → 1965-08-16	148	6th (1965-02-15)	0 weeks	17 yr (29 wells, 11 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1960-11-21 → 1961-04-24	22	24th (1961-01-30)	19 weeks	1 yr (29 wells, 6 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1958-11-17 → 1959-08-10	38	14th (1959-01-12)	40 weeks	1 yr (26 wells, 5 still below)
the 1950s drought	1955-11-21 → 1957-08-12	90	1st (1957-02-18)	0 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 $27,520,820 in drought-caused claims across Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson counties — 55.3% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2022 ($4,231,473).

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 (14,945 rights across 132 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.04 — 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 ↗

75 systems touch this district (75 community systems reporting 2,962,404 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); 4 of them carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record.

System	Serves	Source	Here
DENVER WATER BOARD	1,287,000	Surface water	48% of its area
AURORA CITY OF	533,407	Surface water	19% of its area
CASTLE ROCK TOWN OF	110,298	Surface water	100% of its area
HIGHLANDS RANCH WSD	103,444	Surface water	100% of its area
CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL MAPLE GROVE	81,400	Surface water	48% of its area
PARKER WSD	75,949	Surface water	100% of its area
SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY WSD	75,559	Purchased surface water	1% of its area
EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY WSD	66,130	Purchased surface water	40% of its area

and 67 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 ↗

11 reaches over 82.4 miles, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →

West Creek, 13.4 mi: 1.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1980, 80CW0212) · dossier
Trout Creek, 11.0 mi: 2 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1977, 77W8731) · dossier
Trail Creek, 10.0 mi: 1 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1977, 77W8732) · dossier
Turkey Creek, 9.9 mi: 2 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1980, 80CW0208) · dossier
Jackson Creek, 9.2 mi: 3 (4/1 - 8/31), 1 (9/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 1986, 86CW0294) · dossier
West Creek, 6.6 mi: 4 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1980, 80CW0211) · dossier

and 5 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 1859-03-01 to 2024-09-03. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 5% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 78 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: 16434 across 12310 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 call, calls set, seniority 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	145	1870-06-01
2016	366	168	1875-06-30
2017	365	248	1881-02-01
2018	365	274	1876-05-10
2019	365	281	1881-02-01
2020	366	197	1869-04-01
2021	365	186	1867-04-15
2022	365	236	1867-04-15
2023	333	222	1869-04-01
2024	366	197	1881-02-01
2025	365	329	1881-02-01

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.

CASTLE ROCK SURFACE DIVERSION 1 (0800534) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-06 (19+ days) — call at WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-03 (5+ days) — call at PREWITT INLET CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-03-03 (6+ days) — call at NORTH STERLING CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-11-06 (60+ days) — call at CITY DITCH PL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
CASTLE ROCK SURFACE DIVERSION 1 (0800534) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-24 (94+ days) — call at DENVER CONDUIT NO 20 curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-09-27 (6+ days) — call at BURLINGTON D RIVER HEADGATE curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
CHATFIELD ARBORETUM WETLANDS INLET DITCH (0800524) DWR↗ stopped 2024-06-28 (6+ days) — call at STERLING IRR CO DITCH 1 curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-06-09 (8+ days) — call at STERLING IRR CO DITCH 1 curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
CHATFIELD ARBORETUM WETLANDS INLET DITCH (0800524) DWR↗ stopped 2024-05-21 (24+ days) — call at HARMONY DITCH 1 curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
CASTLE ROCK SURFACE DIVERSION 1 (0800534) DWR↗ stopped 2024-05-12 (9+ days) — call at BURLINGTON D RIVER HEADGATE curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-03-05 (21+ days) — call at BURLINGTON D RIVER HEADGATE curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong, district-confirmed]
PLUM CREEK DIVERSION (0800525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-01-13 (31+ days) — call at LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 9 curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial, district-confirmed]

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
HIGHLINE CNL (0801004) DWR↗	1861-08-30	100.0% / 61.2%	5.1% / 0.0%
DENVER CONDUIT NO 20 (0801002) DWR↗	1860-12-28	100.0% / 84.1%	8.2% / 0.0%
DENVER FOOTHILLS PL 26 (0801017) DWR↗	1860-12-28	100.0% / 84.1%	5.6% / 0.0%
LACOMBE POWER PLANT (0801016) DWR↗	1863-03-15	100.0% / 50.9%	14.8% / 0.0%
AURORA INTAKE (0801001) DWR↗	1863-12-30	100.0% / 47.7%	5.1% / 0.0%
CITY DITCH PL (0801008) DWR↗	1860-11-28	100.0% / 84.1%	5.1% / 0.0%
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 10 (0801997) DWR↗	1994-12-02	5.1% / 0.0%	5.1% / 0.0%
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 9 (0801998) DWR↗	1991-08-02	5.1% / 0.0%	5.1% / 0.0%
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 4 (0801999) DWR↗	1991-08-02	5.1% / 0.0%	5.1% / 0.0%
STRONTIA SPGS POWER P (0801669) DWR↗	1962-03-21	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
NEVADA DITCH (0801009) DWR↗	1861-08-30	100.0% / 61.2%	5.1% / 0.0%
LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (0801007) DWR↗	1862-11-30	100.0% / 50.9%	5.1% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (25 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 ~1973 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

HUGGINS DITCH (0801129) DWR↗ (1870-03-15, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1951 — 73 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1973) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
LITTLETON PL (0801462) DWR↗ (1861-08-30, 0.5 cfs decreed): last active 1968 — 56 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1973) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
STEWART DITCH (0801212) DWR↗ (1874-04-01, 2.7 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
BALL DITCH (0801213) DWR↗ (1872-04-19, 0.3 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
CONEHAY DITCH (0801360) DWR↗ (1892-08-19, 1.9 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
ADKINS PL & DITCH (0801456) DWR↗ (1920-06-29, 0.6 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
MARTHA E HIGSON DITCH (0801458) DWR↗ (1876-04-01, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
DEVINNY RES 2 (0803946) DWR↗ (1893-11-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
HOCKADAY WELL (0805019) DWR↗ (1955-06-01, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle
DENVER C C W BATT 1 (0805024) DWR↗ (1902-06-16, 5.5 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle

Compliance screens (78 advisory flags)

Screened 144 of 12310 structures with rights (209 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.

LOWER PLUM CREEK DITCH LEFT IN STREAM (0802922) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 338.8 cfs (max 475.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 5146 recorded day(s).
PLATTE CANON DITCH (0801005) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 39.0 cfs (max 43.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.7 cfs across 1396 recorded day(s).
SOUTH PLATTE LAKE (0804097) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 23.7 cfs (max 61.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.2 cfs across 14451 recorded day(s).
WAUCONDAH RES (0803516) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 20.2 cfs (max 152.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.0 cfs across 6858 recorded day(s).
DENVER C C W BATT 1 (0805024) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 17.0 cfs (max 17.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.5 cfs across 180 recorded day(s).
EAST PLUM CR DITCH (0801180) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.6 cfs (max 10.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 10.6 cfs across 7990 recorded day(s).
LAKEWOOD CC PUMP 1 (0805034) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.5 cfs (max 10.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.3 cfs across 330 recorded day(s).
BROWN DITCH (0801011) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 16.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.8 cfs across 8516 recorded day(s).
LOWER PLUM CREEK DITCH (0801161) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 8.0 cfs (max 8.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.0 cfs across 1052 recorded day(s).
ALDERMAN DITCH (0801400) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 8.0 cfs (max 8.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 3204 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
HIGHLINE CNL (0801004) DWR↗	1861-08-30	13	628.3	0	—
DENVER CONDUIT NO 20 (0801002) DWR↗	1860-12-28	27	439.8	0	—
DENVER FOOTHILLS PL 26 (0801017) DWR↗	1860-12-28	25	413.0	0	yes
LACOMBE POWER PLANT (0801016) DWR↗	1863-03-15	3	300.0	0	—
AURORA INTAKE (0801001) DWR↗	1863-12-30	18	230.0	474	yes
CITY DITCH PL (0801008) DWR↗	1860-11-28	21	109.5	1790	yes
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 10 (0801997) DWR↗	1994-12-02	1	100.0	0	—
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 9 (0801998) DWR↗	1991-08-02	1	100.0	0	—
LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 4 (0801999) DWR↗	1991-08-02	1	100.0	0	—
STRONTIA SPGS POWER P (0801669) DWR↗	1962-03-21	1	72.0	0	—
NEVADA DITCH (0801009) DWR↗	1861-08-30	19	66.3	418	—
LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (0801007) DWR↗	1862-11-30	20	64.3	10	—
EVANS WELL LFH (0808967) DWR↗	1984-12-18	1	60.4	0	—
LAKE GULCH AQUEDUCT (0800593) DWR↗	1985-03-20	1	53.7	0	yes
BRONES NNT DA WELL FIELD (0818119) DWR↗	2021-07-29	1	38.0	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 (16 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
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD CHATFIELD RESERVOIR OUTLET MANIFOLD TEMPORARY CLOSURE	37-92-308(7) PLAN EMERGENCY	Approved	2026-11-26	—	plan file
SPILLANE POND	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-02-28	—	plan file
BOW MAR OWNERS, INC. AND BOW MAR SOUTH, INC.	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2027-03-31	—	plan file
CASTLE ROCK, TOWN OF 24CW3037	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2027-03-31	—	plan file
ENGLEWOOD NEVADA DITCH	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-06-30	—	plan file
NGA2 DIVERSION FOR RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2027-06-30	—	plan file
DENVER WATER - LOLLIPOP LAKE	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	—	0802708	plan file
FIRESTONE GRAVEL RESOURCE-FKA THE DEL CAMINO PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Pending	—	0503005	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 2026-10-15 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗

3 USGS sensors report temperature, conductance, dissolved oxygen or turbidity from inside this district; provisional readings, never merged into the verified record.

Site	Temp °C	Cond µS/cm	DO mg/L	Turb FNU	As of
SOUTH PLATTE R AT 64TH AVE. COMMERCE CITY, CO.	13.4				2026-10-15 05:45
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER ABV STRONTIA SPGS RESERVOIR, CO ↗	9.6	290	9.5	3	2026-10-15 06:00
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT ENGLEWOOD, CO.	13.1	861	7.5		2026-10-15 06:15

Where water has been sampled

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗

The portal lists 10,211 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Upper South Platte 10190002, 67% of the district; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek 10190003, 32% of the district), of which 360 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 (188), Colorado River Watch (57), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (56). Most-sampled groups: Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Nutrient, Organics, Pesticide. 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 ↗

75 community systems touch this district. 4 carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record; 2 are listed by EPA as serious violators. EPA sampled 23 of them for PFAS in 2023–25; 5 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	—
VALLEY MAINT CORP NO 1	470	1 open health-based	not sampled	0.0029 mg/L
TRANQUIL ACRES WS	180	1 open health-based	not sampled	0.0095 mg/L
VALLEY MAINT CORP NO 2	55	1 open health-based	not sampled	0.0067 mg/L
PARKER WSD	75,949	5 of 12 quarters with a violation	PFOA at or over the limit	0.0026 mg/L
ENGLEWOOD CITY OF	57,332	1 of 12 quarters with a violation	PFOA at or over the limit	0.005 mg/L
ARAPAHOE CNTY WWWA	31,000	clean, last 12 quarters	PFOA at or over the limit	0.0 mg/L
STONEGATE MD	15,295	clean, last 12 quarters	PFOA, PFOS at or over the limit	0.002 mg/L
COTTONWOOD WSD	10,867	11 of 12 quarters with a violation	PFOA at or over the limit	0.0 mg/L
DENVER WATER BOARD	1,287,000	11 of 12 quarters with a violation	none detected	0.0036 mg/L

and 65 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.

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

Administration number

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…

Runoff outlook — South Platte R at South Platte: even odds of at least 58 kAF over 06-01 to 09-30 — 44% 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

South Platte R at South Platte — 06-01 to 09-30 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):

90%	70%	50%	30%	10%	Normal
29	47	58	70	91	131

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.

Something wrong on this page? Tell us →

South Platte Cheesman to Denver Gage

Schematic

Historical

Evolution of the network

Trends

This year, in context

Gage flow trend & changepoints

How the measurement network itself changed

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-09-25)

Data provenance & quality

Groundwater

Well map

3D aquifer x-ray

Water-table trends

Permits issued here, by year

What drillers reached, township by township

Reservoirs

Reservoir map — how full is each vessel?

Basin storage, end of each water year

Largest reservoirs on record

Snow and runoff

Snow-water equivalent, WY2027

Runoff outlook — South Platte R at South Platte

How good are these forecasts here? (1979–2026)

Drought

Right now

Every year since 1895, week by week

This year against its analogs

The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000

The law’s own drought gauge

This basin’s droughts, by its own record

What drought has cost here

When this basin claimed its water

Legal

Who serves it, who protects it

Public water systems here

Instream-flow rights held by the state

Is the river getting harder to divert from?

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Right yield — how often could these rights actually divert?

Abandonment radar (25 screens)

Compliance screens (78 advisory flags)

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Recent inventory & legal-document changes

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

Active substitute water supply plans in this district

Water quality

The water itself, in this district

Right now

Where water has been sampled

Drinking water

Impaired waters

Call cascade

Pick a calling right

This week's diagnostic

System status

Active river calls

Hydrographs vs. historical envelope

Anomaly flags

Keep track of Colorado’s water?