Fountain Creek

Division 2 · Water District 10 · As of 2026-08-19 03:00 MDT

Auto-mapped

Fountain Creek on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 10 · clicktap anything for its record

Snowpack — no snow on the ground at 1 SNOTEL site — normal for the date; the snow year begins in October and typically peaks around April 23. Runoff outlook — Pueblo Reservoir Inflow: even odds of at least 118 kAF over 06-01 to 09-30 — 42% 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
Glen Cove	11410	0.3	0.0	—	April 23 (5.7 in)

Pueblo Reservoir Inflow — 06-01 to 09-30 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):

90%	70%	50%	30%	10%	Normal
60	94	118	142	176	280

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: 12 parent disagreements, 13 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 26 streams, 14 agree. Know this water? Tell us →

Stream	This site routes it to	DWR routes it to
Arkansas River	the mainstem	nan
Beaver Creek	the mainstem	Monument Creek
Goat Camp Creek	the mainstem	Lehman Run
Goat Camp Creek	the mainstem	Deadmans Creek
Jackson Creek	the mainstem	Monument Creek
Black Squirrel Creek	the mainstem	Monument Creek
West Monument Creek	the mainstem	Monument Creek
East Fork Sand Creek (AKA Bierstadt Creek)	the mainstem	Sand Creek

Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:

Williams Creek (27 mi) · Spring Brook (14 mi) · Shooks Run (10 mi) · Bear Creek (10 mi) · Crystola Creek (7 mi) · Porter Creek (6 mi) · Ruxton Creek (6 mi) · Crystal Creek (5 mi)

Reconstruct conditions as of

Evolution of the network

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 40 ranked gages are running at a median 42% of their own long-term norm for this window — 30 below a typical year, 10 at or above. Driest relative to its record: RIPLEY DITCH FROM L. FOUNTAIN CR AT FT. CARSON, CO, ranking 1st lowest of 23 years.

How this comparison is made

Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-07-06, 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 2026-08-30 19:24 from 79 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 79 gages with enough record, 10 are trending down and 14 up, and 23 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Fountain Creek at Pueblo, its annual mean flow changing +15.48 cfs per decade (+15.7% of its median annual flow) over 81 years (p<0.0001). The other 52 show no clear signal either way.

What drought has cost here

Since 1991, federal crop insurance has paid $3,191,448 in drought-caused claims across El Paso, Pueblo counties — 6.5% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2012 ($406,470).

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.

Gage	Trend	Change / decade cfs · % of median annual flow	Significance	Years	Changepoint
▸ Fountain Creek at Pueblo FOUPUECO	↑ increasing	+15.48 cfs +15.7%	p<0.001	81	~1979
▸ ⚠️ Womack Ditch from L. Fountain Cr near Ft. Carson WOMDITCO	↓ decreasing	-0.39 cfs -69.7%	p<0.001	26	~2009
▸ Fountain Creek near Fountain FOUFOUCO	↑ increasing	+13.96 cfs +11.7%	p<0.001	55	~1993
▸ Cottonwood Creek at Woodmen Rd near Colo Springs COCRWOCO	↑ increasing	+0.79 cfs +36.9%	p<0.001	33	~2012
▸ Talcott and Cotton Ditch TACODICO	↑ increasing	+1.43 cfs +75.8%	p<0.001	17	~2018
▸ ⚠️ Merriams Rock Creek Ditch at Ft. Carson ROCDITCO	↓ decreasing	-0.49 cfs -55.9%	p<0.001	26	~2017
▸ Templeton Gap Floodway at Colorado Springs TEMFLOCO	↑ increasing	+0.24 cfs	p=0.001	29	~1964
▸ Chilcott Ditch near Fountain CHIDITCO	↓ decreasing	-2.75 cfs -38.4%	p=0.001	18	~2019
▸ Cottonwood Creek at Mouth at Pikeview COCRPICO	↑ increasing	+0.77 cfs +11.8%	p=0.003	40	~1994
▸ ⚠️ Turkey Creek Ab Teller Reservoir near Stone City TURTELCO	↓ decreasing	-0.49 cfs -61.6%	p=0.003	29	~2000
▸ Fountain Creek at Security FOUSECCO	↑ increasing	+16.76 cfs +14.3%	p=0.003	61	~1982
▸ ⚠️ Gale Ditch from Rock Cr near Fort Carson GALDITCO	↓ decreasing	-0.23 cfs	p=0.004	17	~2008
▸ ⚠️ Wood Valley Ditch near Pinon WDVDITCO	↓ decreasing	-1.32 cfs -101.7%	p=0.004	21	~2014
▸ ⚠️ Chilcott Ditch Aug Station near Fountain CHIAUGCO	↑ increasing	+2.07 cfs +73.8%	p=0.007	20	~2013
▸ Fountain Creek near Pinon FOUPINCO	↑ increasing	+16.61 cfs +13.4%	p=0.009	52	~1993
▸ ⚠️ Dr Rogers Ditch DRGDITCO	↓ decreasing	-1.45 cfs -126.7%	p=0.013	13	~2014
▸ Monument Creek at Pikeview MONPIKCO	↑ increasing	+1.80 cfs +6.4%	p=0.013	60	~1982
▸ Fountain Creek near Colorado Springs FOUNCOCO	↑ increasing	+0.89 cfs +6.8%	p=0.013	67	~1978
▸ Owen-Hall Ditch Cody Aug OWHALLCO	↓ decreasing	-0.04 cfs	p=0.016	14	—
▸ ⚠️ West Monument Creek at U.S. Air Force Academy MONAIRCO	↑ increasing	+0.45 cfs +30.6%	p=0.022	55	~1994
▸ Fountain Creek at Colorado Springs FOUACSCO	↑ increasing	+6.05 cfs +10.4%	p=0.037	50	—
▸ Spring Creek Aug Station near Colorado Springs SPRAUGCO	↑ increasing	+1.06 cfs +11.7%	p=0.037	21	—
▸ West Monument Creek below Rampart Reservoir MONRAMCO	↓ decreasing	-0.40 cfs -9.8%	p=0.041	32	~2001
▸ Ripley Ditch from L. Fountain Cr at Ft. Carson RIPDITCO	↓ decreasing	-0.15 cfs	p=0.048	20	—
▸ Rock Creek above Fort Carson Reservation ROCAFOCO	no clear trend	-0.36 cfs -22.6%	p=0.073	39	~1999
▸ ⚠️ Turkey Cr West Seep Bl Teller Reservoir near Stone City TURWESCO	no clear trend	+0.00 cfs	p=0.122	21	~2010
▸ ⚠️ Turkey Creek near Stone City TURSTOCO	no clear trend	-0.04 cfs	p=0.274	24	~2001

⚠️ 10 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.

52 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: Fountain Cr below Janitell Rd below Colo. Springs (61 yr, increasing); Monument Cr above Woodmen Rd at Colorado Springs (60 yr, increasing, suspect). 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. 52 gage(s) and 100 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1969. 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	0	1
1920s	0	52
1930s	0	48
1940s	3	42
1950s	3	17
1960s	4	46
1970s	6	65
1980s	22	48
1990s	24	74
2000s	44	94
2010s	49	90
2020s	48	99

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 6% of 3127 schematic-relevant structures. 0 year(s) clear the 30% coverage gate so far -- the trend activates automatically once qualifying years span a full decade. No action needed; the nightly backfill keeps extending the record.

Reach gain/loss shifts (1950–2026)

Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1950 (3760 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.

LITTLE FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FORT CARSON, CO.: reach shifted from -63 cfs to -190 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.001, 14 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
JIMMY CAMP CREEK AT FOUNTAIN, CO.: reach shifted from -122 cfs to -10 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.014, 51 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.64) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [31 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -4.2 ft (1953–2018, no_trend)]
FOUNTAIN CREEK AT PUEBLO, CO.: reach shifted from +26 cfs to +200 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 69 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.4) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [33 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -7309.1 ft (1962–2018, no_trend)]
FOUNTAIN CR BLW JANITELL RD BLW COLO. SPRINGS, CO: reach shifted from +106 cfs to +113 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.027, 37 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.5) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [35 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +1395.7 ft (1977–2024, increasing)]
FOUNTAIN CREEK AT SECURITY, CO: reach shifted from +75 cfs to +155 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.005, 62 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [48 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +2.3 ft (1954–2024, no_trend)]
FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO.: reach shifted from +94 cfs to +182 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.018, 46 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.43) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [47 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -0.9 ft (1954–1999, no_trend)]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 2001 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 76 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1919, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 57-year window with full coverage (1970–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 65% of year-to-year variance (almost certainly a basin-wide climate/snowpack driver).

MONAIRCO doesn't move with that shared pattern -- a real, localized signal (a new diversion, land-use change, or a gage-specific data problem) worth a closer look, not necessarily noise.

Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-07-06)

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.

CLOVER IRRIGATING DITCH (diversion): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
RESERVOIR SPRINGS DITCH (diversion): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ROSES SPRING DITCH (diversion): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
VILLAGE AT HOMEWOOD POIN (diversion): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
STEPHANIE NO 1 (diversion): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
BANNING-LEWIS SPRING 8 (return): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
WEST SPRING (return): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
MEADOW SPRING (return): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
FOREST SPRING (return): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
DAVIS SPRING (return): +1.9 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)

Data provenance & quality

Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade C (3/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (imported 2026-08-19) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.

Check	State	What was measured
gage freshness	stale	newest gage reading is 55 day(s) old (target 7)
diversion record	expected-lag	newest diversion record is 304 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	6% of schematic structures have data

Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 140,347 stored values re-checked against DWR's authoritative record (HydroBase_CO_20260707), over 20 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: PASS — 99.17% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 53 co-listed station(s) and 527,824 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.

79 gage(s) / 649,013 daily values (1922-01-01–2026-07-06); 368 structure(s) with diversion records; 2864 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.

52,236 water-level measurements across 2001 monitored well(s) — 687 alluvial, 944 bedrock — plus 32 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 264 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 85 declining, 45 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ DB-102 MONUMENT WELL 2	bedrock	-246.03	31 yr	0.0001
▸ WOODMOOR W.D. #10	bedrock	-208.0	27 yr	0.0
▸ DB-109 DONALA 14A	bedrock	-193.36	16 yr	0.0
▸ DB-128 FOREST LAKES METRO	bedrock	-156.95	47 yr	0.0001
▸ DB-119 PALMER LAKE A-2	bedrock	-137.69	22 yr	0.0002
▸ DB-102 MONUMENT WELL 7	bedrock	-116.5	16 yr	0.0007
▸ DB-102 MONUMENT WELL 8	bedrock	-113.88	28 yr	0.0004
▸ DB-119 (1987-2022)	bedrock	-79.0	33 yr	0.0062

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.

LITTLE FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FORT CARSON, CO.: 2 alluvial well(s) nearby

JIMMY CAMP CREEK AT FOUNTAIN, CO.: 31 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -4.2 ft (1953–2018, no_trend, p=0.0601). Glover screen: 0.3 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.2–0.3 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

FOUNTAIN CREEK AT PUEBLO, CO.: 33 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -7309.1 ft (1962–2018, no_trend, p=0.0993)

FOUNTAIN CR BLW JANITELL RD BLW COLO. SPRINGS, CO: 35 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +1395.7 ft (1977–2024, increasing, p=0.0064). Glover screen: 0.0 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.0–0.0 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

FOUNTAIN CREEK AT SECURITY, CO: 48 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +2.3 ft (1954–2024, no_trend, p=0.7885)

FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO.: 47 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.9 ft (1954–1999, no_trend, p=0.6223). Glover screen: 2.1 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 1.8–2.1 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

ROCK CREEK ABOVE FORT CARSON RESERVATION, CO.: 4 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +0.5 ft (1981–1997, no_trend, p=0.4995)

BEAR CREEK NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO: 0 alluvial well(s) nearby

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.

76 reservoir(s) with 56,672 storage measurement(s), 1919–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 41,347 AF across 26 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)
▸ RAMPART RESERVOIR (1003670)	27,153	2025-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ CATAMOUNT CR WTR SYS R1 (1003643)	9,690	1970-11-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ NORTH CATAMOUNT RES (1003673)	7,912	2025-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ MCELROY RESERVOIR (1003534)	2,214	1976-07-16	—	—	dossier →
▸ FOUNTAIN VALLEY RES NO 2 (1003641)	1,382	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ BRISTLECONE RES. NO 2 (1003906)	1,159	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE MORAINE RESERVOIR (1003654)	718	2025-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ MANITOU RESERVOIR (1003657)	710	2025-10-01	—	—	dossier →

Snow-water equivalent, WY2026

No snow on the ground — normal for the date; the snow year begins in October. The chart shows the full water year just ending.

SNOTEL site	Elev (ft)	SWE (in)	Median (in)	% of median	Typical peak
Glen Cove	11410	0.3	0.0	—	April 23 (5.7 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 (2005–2026)

A bad snow year here comes in two flavors (both called snow drought), and the river feels them differently. In 7 of the last 22 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 1 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. This year was one of the dry ones: the pack peaked at 46% of median.

The snow never came: 2006, 2011, 2012, 2018, 2022, 2023, 2026. The snow left early: 2020.

Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 2005). 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 — Pueblo Reservoir Inflow

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 118 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 42% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 60, probably not more than 176. Our own record at this gage shows 12 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 92 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →

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
60	94	118	142	176	280	12*

How good are these forecasts here? (1966–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 52 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 32%, with a high bias of 2%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 56% 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 (2005–2025)

Across 18 measured years, April snowpack has explained only part of this river’s season — the dots below scatter widely, so read any single year’s snow number loosely here. In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 76% of a normal season, against 109% in typical years — the timing of the melt matters, not just its size.

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.

Decreed rights on this network run from 1860-02-20 to 2023-06-02. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 82% of a median irrigation season and 25% in a dry one. 10 abandonment screens and 38 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: 3557 across 2864 structure(s); 150 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 2003–2025, administration on this district has been tightening: 3 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 (23 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	365	419	1866-05-01
2015	365	222	1865-10-07
2016	366	355	1862-04-30
2017	365	260	1866-10-31
2018	365	401	1862-04-30
2019	365	389	1862-03-20
2020	366	340	1861-05-31
2021	365	362	1862-04-30
2022	365	370	1862-11-15
2023	365	369	1862-04-30
2024	366	359	1862-04-30
2025	365	384	1862-04-30

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.

MONUMENT CREEK PIPELINE (1000506) DWR↗ stopped 2025-10-09 (22+ days) — call at CANON HEIGHTS DITCH curtailing 87% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
CHILCOTT DITCH (1000593) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-17 (5+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
TALCOTT & COTTON DITCH (1000568) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-31 (22+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
COLO SPRINGS PIPELINE (1000627) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-24 (21+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
FRENCH CREEK DIVERSION (1000574) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-21 (29+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 68% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
RUXTON CREEK PIPELINE (1000581) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-21 (8+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 88% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
DIXON DITCH (1000541) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-15 (25+ days) — call at HARDSCRABBLE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
BURKE DITCH (1000605) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-31 (7+ days) — call at TITSWORTH DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
TALCOTT & COTTON DITCH (1000568) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-08 (12+ days) — call at LUCERO DITCH curtailing 66% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
COLO SPRINGS PIPELINE (1000627) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-02 (17+ days) — call at PULASKI DITCH curtailing 96% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
OWEN & HALL DITCH (1000577) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-31 (10+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 67% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
RIPLEY DITCH (1000559) DWR↗ stopped 2025-04-16 (18+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]

Right yield — how often could these rights actually divert?

Share of irrigation-season days each structure's rights were not called out, derived from the 22-year district-scoped call record (senior right = floor, junior right = ceiling constraint). Call-record-derived; DWR's own analysis governs where available.

Structure	Senior priority	Senior right: median / dry yr	Junior right: median / dry yr
FOUNTAIN MUTUAL CANAL (1000736) DWR↗	1861-09-21	96.7% / 44.4%	0.0% / 0.0%
BARNES ET AL NT ARAPAHOE (1009031) DWR↗	2009-06-24	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
EL PASO COUNTY CANAL (1000601) DWR↗	1861-03-20	97.7% / 58.9%	0.0% / 0.0%
CHILCOTT DITCH (1000593) DWR↗	1861-12-31	96.7% / 40.2%	0.0% / 0.0%
MESA PIPELINE (1000609) DWR↗	1860-09-01	97.7% / 58.9%	0.0% / 0.0%
OWEN & HALL DITCH (1000577) DWR↗	1862-12-31	71.0% / 24.8%	0.0% / 0.0%
COLO SPRINGS PIPELINE (1000627) DWR↗	1861-03-21	97.7% / 58.9%	0.0% / 0.0%
AUSTIN BLUFFS PIPELINE (1000659) DWR↗	1861-12-31	96.7% / 40.2%	0.0% / 0.0%
RUXTON CREEK PIPELINE (1000581) DWR↗	1860-02-20	100.0% / 100.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
BEAR CREEK PIPELINE (1000535) DWR↗	1861-12-31	96.7% / 40.2%	0.0% / 0.0%
NORTH SLOPE CONDUIT (1000884) DWR↗	1901-12-31	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
MONUMENT CREEK PIPELINE (1000506) DWR↗	1862-04-01	93.5% / 24.8%	0.0% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (10 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 ~1969 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

JACKSON & BURKE DITCH (1000806) DWR↗ (1873-03-21, 10.8 cfs decreed): last active 1929 — 62 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
IRVINE DITCH (1000589) DWR↗ (1866-04-01, 1.8 cfs decreed): last active 1930 — 61 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
HARMES DITCH (1000587) DWR↗ (1861-03-20, 3.7 cfs decreed): last active 1943 — 48 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
NORTH CHEYENNE PIPELINE (1000608) DWR↗ (1890-03-01, 0.9 cfs decreed): last active 1950 — 41 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
FORD WHITE DITCH NO 1 (1000730) DWR↗ (1888-04-13, 9.8 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 21 years idle
H O P DITCH NO 2 (1000766) DWR↗ (1875-07-01, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 21 years idle
NORTHSIDE DITCH (1000612) DWR↗ (1892-11-11, 26.4 cfs decreed): last active 1971 — 20 years idle
BANNISTER DITCH (1000744) DWR↗ (1866-09-21, 2.6 cfs decreed): last active 1976 — 15 years idle
FOUNTAIN UNDERFLOW SYS (1000759) DWR↗ (1868-02-15, 13.8 cfs decreed): last active 1976 — 15 years idle
WEST TURF WELL NO 1 (1005864) DWR↗ (1974-01-23, 2.4 cfs decreed): last active 1976 — 15 years idle

Compliance screens (38 advisory flags)

Screened 124 of 2864 structures with rights (164 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.

TESTING WDID (NOT AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE) (1099999) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 123.0 cfs (max 123.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.0 cfs across 622 recorded day(s).
BURKE DITCH (1000605) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 16.9 cfs (max 66.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 7.7 cfs across 45810 recorded day(s).
JACKSON & BURKE DITCH (1000806) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 15.0 cfs (max 20.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 10.8 cfs across 916 recorded day(s).
CASCADE CREEK DIVERSION (1000572) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 13.0 cfs (max 51.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 48943 recorded day(s).
TOM WANLESS DITCH (1000569) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 12.0 cfs (max 17.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 7.5 cfs across 15775 recorded day(s).
LAUGHLIN DITCH (1000592) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.6 cfs (max 31.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 11.5 cfs across 21085 recorded day(s).
SOUTH CATAMOUNT CREEK DIVERSION (1000576) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.5 cfs (max 132.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.4 cfs across 50025 recorded day(s).
NORTH CATAMOUNT CREEK (1000575) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.3 cfs (max 110.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.9 cfs across 46432 recorded day(s).
FRENCH CREEK DIVERSION (1000574) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.1 cfs (max 54.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.8 cfs across 42778 recorded day(s).
ROBINSON DITCH (1000580) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 11.1 cfs (max 110.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 10.4 cfs across 18774 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
FOUNTAIN MUTUAL CANAL (1000736) DWR↗	1861-09-21	14	412.8	30	—
BARNES ET AL NT ARAPAHOE (1009031) DWR↗	2009-06-24	2	330.0	2410	—
EL PASO COUNTY CANAL (1000601) DWR↗	1861-03-20	6	104.2	0	—
CHILCOTT DITCH (1000593) DWR↗	1861-12-31	12	83.0	734	—
MESA PIPELINE (1000609) DWR↗	1860-09-01	10	49.7	0	—
OWEN & HALL DITCH (1000577) DWR↗	1862-12-31	2	46.3	0	—
COLO SPRINGS PIPELINE (1000627) DWR↗	1861-03-21	5	46.1	0	—
AUSTIN BLUFFS PIPELINE (1000659) DWR↗	1861-12-31	9	44.9	0	—
RUXTON CREEK PIPELINE (1000581) DWR↗	1860-02-20	6	39.1	0	—
BEAR CREEK PIPELINE (1000535) DWR↗	1861-12-31	9	37.9	0	—
NORTH SLOPE CONDUIT (1000884) DWR↗	1901-12-31	1	35.0	0	—
MONUMENT CREEK PIPELINE (1000506) DWR↗	1862-04-01	4	30.1	0	—
NORTHSIDE DITCH (1000612) DWR↗	1892-11-11	1	26.4	0	—
SOUTH CHEYENNE PIPELINE (1000537) DWR↗	1860-09-01	9	23.8	0	—
TALCOTT & COTTON DITCH (1000568) DWR↗	1864-12-31	2	17.8	0	—

No inventory or legal-document changes detected since the daily watch began.

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

6 applications in the 2026-07 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 2026-09-30 (30 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 6 filings, with excerpts

Case	What it asks	County	Excerpt
`2026CW3032`	—	—	CASE NO. 2026CW3032; Previous Case Nos. 20CW3003, 13CW3008, 97CW83 – EMPIRE LODGE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC. c/o Tim Ratterman, President, 585 Empire Valley Drive, Leadville, CO 80461 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Appl…
`2026CW3033` 1205090 1205091	reasonable diligence	—	CASE NO. 2026CW3033; Previous Case No. 2019CW3032 – SANGRE DE CRISTO RANCH, LLC c/o Stephanie Stolba, 44301 E Iliff Trail, Bennett, CO 80102 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorney: Jennifer M. DiLalla, #40319,…
`2026CW3034`	—	HUERFANO	CASE NO. 2026CW 3034; (2017CW3075); CUCHARAS SANITATION & WATER DISTRICT, 16925 Highway 12, Cucharas, Colorado 81055 (“CSWD”); Huerfano County Water Conservancy District, c/o/ Administrator, P.O. Pox 442, La Veta, Colorado 81055 (“Huerfano”); Town of La Veta, …
`2026CW3035`	plan for augmentation	—	CASE NO. 2026CW3035; GUM FAMILY TRUST AND JACOB GUM, TRUSTEE AND INDIVIDUALLY, 8580 Forest Line Point, Colorado Springs, CO, 80908 (Please address all pleadings a nd inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorney s: Philip E. Lopez, Eric K. Trout, Fai…
`2026CW3036` 1406622 1406637 1406670	plan for augmentation	—	CASE NO. 2026CW3036; Previous Case No. 2017CW3009 – SILOAM WELL ASSOCIATION, 46 Glenroyal Dr., Pueblo, CO 81005 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorney: Steven L. Jasnssen, Esq., 1937 Juniper St., Longmont, CO …
`2026CW7`	—	—	CASE NO. 2026CW7; COLORADO DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE AND THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION (“CPW”), Attn: Pete Conovitz, Water Rights Program Administrator, 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80216 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this m…

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
CCMD HALE RESERVOIR	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2026-09-30	1007443	plan file
SECURITY SANITATION DISTRICT & SECURITY WATER DISTRICT SWSP	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2026-10-31	1007808	plan file
CSU SUPERDITCH RF	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-03-31	1707869	plan file
ROBISON PONDS	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-05-31	1007813	plan file
FOUNTAIN PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Pending	—	1007807	plan file
COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES FLCC SHARES	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Withdrawn	—	1707706	plan file
RIVERSIDE RANCH SANDOVALS	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Withdrawn	—	1007455	plan file

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.

Stream	Gage	R-mile	Predicted (cfs)	Observed (cfs)	Δ (cfs)	Reach (mi)	Hypothesis
MAINSTEM	CRUSE GULCH NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO (CRUGULCO)	31.2	142.9	0.0	-142.9	0.6	Unaccounted -142.9 cfs loss over 0.6 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO. (FOUFOUCO)	42.5	0.1	142.8	+142.7	3.0	Unaccounted +142.7 cfs gain over 3.0 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	TALCOTT AND COTTON DITCH (TACODICO)	43.3	142.8	0.5	-142.3	0.8	Unaccounted -142.3 cfs loss over 0.8 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT SECURITY, CO (FOUSECCO)	30.6	6.3	142.9	+136.6	0.3	Unaccounted +136.6 cfs gain over 0.3 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CR BLW JANITELL RD BLW COLO. SPRINGS, CO (FOUJANCO)	23.2	5.3	113.1	+107.8	0.3	Unaccounted +107.8 cfs gain over 0.3 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	SAND CREEK ABOVE MOUTH AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (SANCOLCO)	24.6	113.1	7.6	-105.4	1.4	Unaccounted -105.4 cfs loss over 1.4 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT 8TH STREET AT PUEBLO (FOUPU8CO)	72.6	4.0	93.5	+89.4	1.6	Unaccounted +89.4 cfs gain over 1.6 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR PINON, CO (FOUPINCO)	59.3	0.0	88.9	+88.9	0.7	Unaccounted +88.9 cfs gain over 0.7 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	MERRIAMS ROCK CREEK DITCH AT FT. CARSON, CO (ROCDITCO)	62.9	88.9	0.0	-88.9	3.6	Unaccounted -88.9 cfs loss over 3.6 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	CHEYENNE CREEK AT EVANS AVE AT COLORADO SPRINGS,CO (CHEEVACO)	20.9	53.1	1.5	-51.7	1.0	Unaccounted -51.7 cfs loss over 1.0 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (FOUACSCO)	21.4	1.5	52.3	+50.8	0.4	Unaccounted +50.8 cfs gain over 0.4 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT MOUTH PUEBLO (FOUMOUCO)	74.1	93.5	45.1	-48.4	1.5	Unaccounted -48.4 cfs loss over 1.5 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	MONUMENT CREEK AT BIJOU ST. AT COLO. SPRINGS, CO (MONBIJCO)	20.0	10.1	53.1	+43.0	0.2	Unaccounted +43.0 cfs gain over 0.2 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN MUTUAL DITCH NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (FOMDITCO)	22.5	52.3	14.7	-37.6	1.1	Unaccounted -37.6 cfs loss over 1.1 mi. Returns in this reach with stale data (FRY-ARK RETURN FLOWS) — over-reporting elsewhere is also possible.
MAINSTEM	MONUMENT CREEK AT PIKEVIEW, CO. (MONPIKCO)	16.9	5.5	35.9	+30.4	0.1	Unaccounted +30.4 cfs gain over 0.1 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	MONUMENT CREEK AT PIKEVIEW, CO. (MONPIKCO)	17.0	35.9	8.3	-27.6	0.0	Unaccounted -27.6 cfs loss over 0.0 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	MONUMENT CREEK AT PIKEVIEW, CO. (MONPIKCO)	17.0	21.0	8.2	-12.9	0.0	Unaccounted -12.9 cfs loss over 0.0 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	MONUMENT CREEK AT PIKEVIEW, CO. (MONPIKCO)	17.0	8.3	21.0	+12.7	0.0	Unaccounted +12.7 cfs gain over 0.0 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	CHILCOTT DITCH AUG STATION NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO (CHIAUGCO)	39.3	12.2	2.2	-10.1	0.2	Unaccounted -10.1 cfs loss over 0.2 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	SPRING CREEK AUG STATION NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (SPRAUGCO)	22.9	14.7	5.3	-9.5	0.4	Unaccounted -9.5 cfs loss over 0.4 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT 8TH STREET (FOU8THCO)	19.8	0.8	10.1	+9.3	1.3	Unaccounted +9.3 cfs gain over 1.3 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	OWEN AND HALL DITCH (OWHLDTCO)	39.1	4.3	12.2	+7.9	7.6	Unaccounted +7.9 cfs gain over 7.6 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	ROCK CREEK ABOVE FORT CARSON RESERVATION, CO. (ROCAFOCO)	25.5	7.6	0.2	-7.5	0.9	Unaccounted -7.5 cfs loss over 0.9 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	BEAR CREEK NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (BEARCOCO)	18.5	8.2	0.8	-7.3	1.5	Unaccounted -7.3 cfs loss over 1.5 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged diversion, channel seepage / phreatophyte loss, or evapotranspiration.
MAINSTEM	WEST MONUMENT CREEK BELOW RAMPART RESERVOIR, CO (MONRAMCO)	3.5	0.1	7.3	+7.2	3.2	Unaccounted +7.2 cfs gain over 3.2 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.
MAINSTEM	MCRAE AUGMENTATION STATION (FMIC) BELOW BIG JOHNSON RESERVOIR (MCRAUGCO)	30.4	0.2	6.3	+6.2	4.9	Unaccounted +6.2 cfs gain over 4.9 mi. Likely cause: stale/missing return data at SECURITY SEWAGE OUTFALL.
MAINSTEM	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO. (FOUNCOCO)	16.8	0.0	5.5	+5.5	0.7	Unaccounted +5.5 cfs gain over 0.7 mi. No structure clearly responsible — possible ungaged return flow, baseflow from groundwater, or unmodeled tributary inflow.

Gage ⇅	Station ⇅	Avg cfs Aug 10–Aug 16 ⇅	% Hist Median ⇅	Rank ⇅	Δ1wk ⇅	Δ4wk ⇅	Yrs ⇅	Status ⇅
CRUGULCO	CRUSE GULCH NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	0.0	NO_DATA
LIFOUNCO	LITTLE FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO.	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	17.7	SHORT_RECORD
TURWESCO	TURKEY CR WEST SEEP BL TELLER RES NR STONE CITY,CO	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	22.6	SHORT_RECORD
TUREASCO	TURKEY C EAST SEEP BL TELLER RES NR STONE CITY, CO	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	22.6	SHORT_RECORD
LYTCARCO	LYTLE DITCH AT FT. CARSON, CO	0.0	6%	0	-0	-0	22.0	SHORT_RECORD
ROCDITCO	MERRIAMS ROCK CREEK DITCH AT FT. CARSON, CO	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	27.0	SHORT_RECORD
SPRAUGCO	SPRING CREEK AUG STATION NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	5.3	58%	0	-4	-3	21.4	SHORT_RECORD
1000574A	FRENCH CREEK DIVERSION	1.2	30%	0	+0	+1	1.5	SHORT_RECORD
CHIDITCO	CHILCOTT DITCH NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO	2.2	22%	7	-6	-2	20.5	SHORT_RECORD
MONBMNCO	MONUMENT CREEK BELOW MONUMENT LAKE NEAR MONUMENT	0.1	18%	12	+0	+0	20.4	SHORT_RECORD
FOUPU8CO	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT 8TH STREET AT PUEBLO	93.5	63%	19	+52	+53	3.1	SHORT_RECORD
OWHLDTCO	OWEN AND HALL DITCH	12.2	92%	22	-2	-2	8.4	SHORT_RECORD
BURDITCO	BURKE DITCH NEAR PINON, CO	3.2	59%	27	-3	+3	21.3	SHORT_RECORD
RIPDITCO	RIPLEY DITCH FROM L. FOUNTAIN CR AT FT. CARSON, CO	0.0	16%	29	-0	+0	22.0	SHORT_RECORD
FOU8THCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT 8TH STREET	10.1	82%	32	+9	+9	7.0	SHORT_RECORD
SANCOLCO	SAND CREEK ABOVE MOUTH AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	7.6	49%	33	+7	+8	18.0	SHORT_RECORD
UPBVCRCO	UPPER BEAVER CREEK NEAR MONUMENT, CO	0.6	56%	33	+0	+0	22.2	SHORT_RECORD
TACODICO	TALCOTT AND COTTON DITCH	0.5	49%	34	-2	+0	18.2	SHORT_RECORD
WOMDITCO	WOMACK DITCH FROM L. FOUNTAIN CR NR FT. CARSON, CO	0.3	49%	34	+0	+0	27.0	SHORT_RECORD
CHIAUGCO	CHILCOTT DITCH AUG STATION NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO	2.3	61%	40	-6	-2	20.4	SHORT_RECORD
FOMDITCO	FOUNTAIN MUTUAL DITCH NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	14.7	87%	43	+0	+3	21.5	SHORT_RECORD
WDVDITCO	WOOD VALLEY DITCH NEAR PINON, CO	0.2	1567%	51	-2	+0	21.2	SHORT_RECORD
MONBIJCO	MONUMENT CREEK AT BIJOU ST. AT COLO. SPRINGS, CO	53.1	107%	52	+35	+36	23.3	SHORT_RECORD
MONWOOCO	MONUMENT CR ABV WOODMEN RD AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	21.0	106%	56	+11	+14	29.8	SHORT_RECORD
CLOWIDCO	CLOVER DITCH DRAIN NEAR WIDEFIELD, CO	4.3	121%	59	+1	+2	8.6	SHORT_RECORD
OWHALLCO	OWEN-HALL DITCH CODY AUG	0.4	216%	88	-0	-0	15.3	SHORT_RECORD
STODITCO	STROBEL DITCH FROM TURKEY CR AT FT. CARSON, CO	0.0	0%	100	+0	+0	22.4	SHORT_RECORD
MCRAUGCO	MCRAE AUGMENTATION STATION (FMIC) BELOW BIG JOHNSON RESERVOIR	6.3	0%	100	+1	-2	12.8	SHORT_RECORD
WLDHRSCO	WILD HORSE CREEK CONFLUENCE	4.0	112%	100	-0	+0	1.8	SHORT_RECORD
TURTELCO	TURKEY CREEK AB TELLER RES NEAR STONE CITY, CO.	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	38.1	OK
FOUNCOCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO.	5.5	34%	0	+0	+1	68.3	OK
CAMPGOCO	CAMP CREEK AT GARDEN OF THE GODS, CO	0.0	0%	0	+0	+0	33.9	OK
JIMCAMCO	JIMMY CAMP CREEK AT FOUNTAIN, CO.	0.1	6%	0	-0	-0	50.5	OK
ROCAFOCO	ROCK CREEK ABOVE FORT CARSON RESERVATION, CO.	0.2	20%	10	+0	+0	42.6	OK
CHEEVACO	CHEYENNE CREEK AT EVANS AVE AT COLORADO SPRINGS,CO	1.5	37%	14	+0	+1	34.2	OK
FOUMOUCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT MOUTH PUEBLO	45.1	36%	17	+16	+11	35.6	OK
BEARCOCO	BEAR CREEK NEAR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	0.8	63%	20	-0	+0	34.2	OK
FOUACSCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	52.3	74%	33	+21	+33	50.5	OK
FOUPINCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR PINON, CO	88.9	64%	36	+32	+44	53.3	OK
FOUJANCO	FOUNTAIN CR BLW JANITELL RD BLW COLO. SPRINGS, CO	113.1	89%	41	+60	+57	36.7	OK
COCRPICO	COTTONWOOD CREEK AT MOUTH AT PIKEVIEW, CO	8.3	96%	48	+6	+6	40.5	OK
FOUSECCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK AT SECURITY, CO	142.9	118%	55	+65	+75	61.8	OK
FOUFOUCO	FOUNTAIN CREEK NEAR FOUNTAIN, CO.	142.8	118%	56	+66	+66	57.0	OK
MONPIKCO	MONUMENT CREEK AT PIKEVIEW, CO.	35.9	139%	66	+23	+28	61.5	OK
MONGATCO	MONUMENT C AB N.GATE BLVD AT USAF ACADEMY, CO.	8.4	156%	71	+7	+4	40.0	OK
MONAIRCO	WEST MONUMENT CREEK AT U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, CO	3.5	345%	81	-0	+0	56.2	OK
MONRAMCO	WEST MONUMENT CREEK BELOW RAMPART RESERVOIR, CO	7.3	181%	100	-6	-8	32.6	OK
COCRWOCO	COTTONWOOD CREEK AT WOODMEN RD NR COLO SPRINGS, CO	8.2	311%	100	+6	+7	34.1	OK