Hydrohistorian
Wet Mountain Valley
Wet Mountain Valley on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 13 · 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 — Grape Ck nr Westcliffe: even odds of at least 2 kAF over 06-01 to 09-30 — 25% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Colony | 10790 | 0.1 | 0.0 | — | April 23 (20.9 in) |
Grape Ck nr Westcliffe — 06-01 to 09-30 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 |
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: 7 parent disagreements, 7 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 21 streams, 14 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| North Branch Middle Colony Creek | the mainstem | South Colony Creek |
| Goodwin Creek | the mainstem | Taylor Creek |
| Middle Taylor Creek | the mainstem | Taylor Creek |
| Alvarado Creek | the mainstem | Spring Creek |
| Cottonwood Creek | the mainstem | Alvarado Creek |
| South Colony Creek | the mainstem | nan |
| Cottonwood Creek | the mainstem | Froze Creek |
Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:
Wilmer Gulch (14 mi) · Johnson Gulch (10 mi) · Crystal Falls Creek (4 mi) · Spring Creek (4 mi) · Democrat Creek (4 mi) · Music Pass Creek (3 mi) · Spring Creek (3 mi)
Schematic
Historical
Evolution of the network
Trends
This year, in context
In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 4 ranked gages are running at a median 16% of their own long-term norm for this window — 4 below a typical year, 0 at or above. Driest relative to its record: W A BELL DITCH NO 3, ranking 1st lowest of 9 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 19:32 from 8 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.
None of the 8 gages with enough record shows a significant trend or a detected shift — which is itself the finding.
No gage shows a statistically significant trend or changepoint yet.
8 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).
How the measurement network itself changed
This basin was not always measured the way it is today — the API-era record is dense and recent, the early record sparse. 5 gage(s) and 339 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1916. 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) |
|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 0 | 1 |
| 1910s | 0 | 221 |
| 1920s | 0 | 232 |
| 1930s | 1 | 0 |
| 1940s | 1 | 136 |
| 1950s | 1 | 1 |
| 1960s | 1 | 0 |
| 1970s | 2 | 180 |
| 1980s | 1 | 184 |
| 1990s | 1 | 224 |
| 2000s | 1 | 290 |
| 2010s | 4 | 304 |
| 2020s | 5 | 266 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 34% of 953 schematic-relevant structures. 4 year(s) clear the 30% coverage gate so far (1975–2023) -- 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 (2012–2026)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 2012 (77 reach-snapshots) — which reaches gain or lose water, and how that has shifted across decades. Each shift is cross-checked against the observation record above: as more diversions became metered, "unaccounted" water shrinks mechanically, which can masquerade as a hydrologic shift.
No reach shows a statistically significant long-term gain/loss shift.
Groundwater now has its own tab: 224 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Reservoirs now has its own tab: 2 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Not enough gages with a long enough common-coverage window yet to fingerprint shared patterns.
Data provenance & quality
Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade D (2/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_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 | stale | newest diversion record is 669 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 34% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 114,849 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 — 100.00% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 3 co-listed station(s) and 28,273 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.
8 gage(s) / 55,098 daily values (1925-04-01–2026-07-06); 627 structure(s) with diversion records; 1017 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
2,534 water-level measurements across 224 monitored well(s) — 161 alluvial, 0 bedrock — plus 0 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 25 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 9 declining, 0 rising.
| Fastest-declining wells | Setting | ft / decade | Span | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ SC02107225ACB | alluvial | -7.39 | 12 yr | 0.0293 |
| ▸ SC02307224DBC1 | alluvial | -6.94 | 14 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04601224AAB | alluvial | -6.3 | 38 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ SC02207329BDA | alluvial | -6.13 | 23 yr | 0.0004 |
| ▸ SC02407125BAA | unknown | -2.32 | 23 yr | 0.0041 |
| ▸ SC02307224DBC | alluvial | -1.43 | 11 yr | 0.0467 |
| ▸ SC02307210DDD | alluvial | -1.2 | 55 yr | 0.0379 |
| ▸ SC02207220CAD | alluvial | -0.54 | 23 yr | 0.0006 |
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.
Reservoirs
2 reservoir(s) with 1,087 storage measurement(s), 1950–2010. Basin storage as of 2009-10-27 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 1,501 AF across 1 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) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ DEWEESE DYE RESERVOIR (1303613) | 1,501 | 2009-10-27 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ SPRUCE CREEK RESERVOIR (1303557) | 21 | 2006-10-01 | — | — | dossier → |
Snow and runoff
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Colony | 10790 | 0.1 | 0.0 | — | April 23 (20.9 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 (1992–2026)
A bad snow year here comes in two flavors (both called snow droughtA winter that shorts the snowpack. It happens two ways: a dry one, where the snow never comes, and a warm one, where near-normal snow falls but melts off weeks early -- and the river feels them differently.), and the river feels them differently. In 11 of the last 35 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 0 more, the snow came but left early — a near-normal peak melted out two weeks or more ahead of its usual date, sending the water down before the season needed it. This year was one of the dry ones: the pack peaked at 40% of median.
The snow never came: 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2025, 2026.
Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1992). 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 — Grape Ck nr Westcliffe
NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 2 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 25% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 6. Our own record at this gage shows 0 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 93 days). 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 31 replayed seasons (36% typical miss unadjusted vs 40% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 0* |
How good are these forecasts here? (1980–2025)
Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 44 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 40%, with a high bias of 15%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 68% 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 (1992–2025)
Across 34 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 54% of a normal season (a snow-to-runoff elasticityHow strongly one number moves with another. A snow-to-runoff elasticity of 1.5 means a 10% shortfall in April snowpack has typically become a 15% shortfall in the season's water. of 2.3).
Computed by this site: the district’s April 1 SWE (% of each SNOTEL site’s own-record median) against the observed April–July volume at this gage (% of its median season) — a fixed window every year, unlike the forecast grades above, which use each issue’s own period. The slope is fit so single wild years can’t steer it (Theil–Sen, log space); years missing 10% of their days are dropped.
Drought
Right now
This is the 10th-driest week 27 in 99 years of record at GRAPE CREEK NEAR WESTCLIFFE, CO. (as of 2026-06-29; this week’s flow sits at the 10th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Chaffee County is 78% in D4 exceptional drought (2026-08-25). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 0% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.
Every year since 1925, week by week
Each thin row is a year at GRAPE CREEK NEAR WESTCLIFFE, CO.; 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.
The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000
Mean share of area in each class across Chaffee, Custer, Fremont 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 2013 — 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 (130 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 | Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| unnamed dry spell | 2025-08-11 → 2026-01-26 | 24 | 25th (2025-08-25) | 0 weeks |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2020-06-15 → 2021-03-08 | 38 | 14th (2020-09-21) | 10 weeks |
| the 2018 drought | 2018-07-16 → 2019-04-15 | 39 | 10th (2018-10-08) | 8 weeks |
| the 2012-13 drought | 2011-06-06 → 2013-11-18 | 128 | 11th (2013-01-14) | 36 weeks |
| the 2002 drought | 2002-04-29 → 2003-07-28 | 65 | 14th (2002-08-26) | 55 weeks |
| unnamed dry spell | 1996-08-19 → 1997-01-27 | 23 | 25th (1996-10-14) | 12 weeks |
| the 1977 drought | 1978-07-03 → 1979-05-07 | 44 | 13th (1978-10-09) | 4 weeks |
| unnamed dry spell | 1974-06-24 → 1975-04-28 | 44 | 15th (1974-10-21) | 8 weeks |
| unnamed dry spell | 1972-06-05 → 1972-12-25 | 29 | 26th (1972-08-28) | 15 weeks |
| unnamed dry spell | 1967-04-17 → 1967-09-04 | 20 | 26th (1967-05-29) | 3 weeks |
| the 1963-64 drought | 1963-02-18 → 1965-06-28 | 123 | 2nd (1964-03-02) | 1 week |
| unnamed dry spell | 1959-01-05 → 1959-08-24 | 33 | 14th (1959-03-30) | 31 weeks |
| unnamed dry spell | 1958-03-03 → 1958-08-11 | 23 | 20th (1958-03-31) | 85 weeks |
| the 1950s drought | 1956-07-16 → 1957-07-15 | 52 | 7th (1956-12-10) | 0 weeks |
Detected mechanically: the 26-week smoothed percentile below the 30th for at least 20 weeks; recovered on regaining the 50th. 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.
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
Decreed rights on this network run from 1869-05-20 to 2021-07-19. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 0% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 325 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: 1263 across 1017 structure(s); 395 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.
- HALF SECTION (1300506) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-18 (46+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- HILL DITCH NO 2 APD (1300526) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-06 (16+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH [heuristic-strong]
- HARTBAUER DITCH NO 1 (1300503) DWR↗ stopped 2023-10-31 (189+ days) — call at BURROUGHS DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- SCHNEIDER DITCH NO 4 (1300537) DWR↗ stopped 2023-10-31 (198+ days) — call at BURROUGHS DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- KELLING DITCH NO 3 (1300567) DWR↗ stopped 2023-10-19 (187+ days) — call at CHILILI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRAILS END OVERFLOW DIV (1301217) DWR↗ | 1950-12-31 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| LAKE CREEK BYPASS DITCH (1301111) DWR↗ | 1939-05-26 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| CHARLES SCHULZ DITCH A (1300524) DWR↗ | 1894-05-15 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| ULA DITCH (1300862) DWR↗ | 1873-04-17 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| W A BELL DITCH NO 3 (1300848) DWR↗ | 1871-06-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| SMITH DITCH (1300855) DWR↗ | 1869-09-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| FREER BECKWITH KENNICOTT (1300905) DWR↗ | 1875-05-10 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| HOULE DITCH NO 6 (1300991) DWR↗ | 1890-01-15 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| TEXAS CREEK MIN FLOW (1303025) DWR↗ | 1998-01-29 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| ELDRIDGE SHIELDS JOHNSON (1300856) DWR↗ | 1871-05-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| W R VORIS DITCH (1300990) DWR↗ | 1884-04-30 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| ST ALMO DITCH (1300703) DWR↗ | 1878-06-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 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 ~1916 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- HALL DITCH NO 2 (1301059) DWR↗ (1876-05-20, 0.6 cfs decreed): last active 1930 — 94 years idle
- HILLSIDE DITCH (1301008) DWR↗ (1886-06-20, 3.3 cfs decreed): last active 1942 — 82 years idle
- H H TOMPKINS DITCH NO 3 (1300724) DWR↗ (1887-04-15, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 54 years idle
- MANNING SPRING NO 1 (1302016) DWR↗ (1911-12-31, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 54 years idle
- KEEPSAKE SPRING NO 1 (1302135) DWR↗ (1966-12-31, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 54 years idle
- HENRY DITCH (1300523) DWR↗ (1890-08-22, 2.5 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle
- MONITOR DITCH (1300529) DWR↗ (1887-06-01, 1.1 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle
- WM SCHULZ DITCH NO 4 (1300577) DWR↗ (1881-07-18, 0.5 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle
- CHARLEY DITCH (1300585) DWR↗ (1887-06-01, 0.4 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle
- J HILTMAN DITCH NO 1 (1300811) DWR↗ (1881-07-15, 0.2 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle
Compliance screens (325 advisory flags)
Screened 460 of 1017 structures with rights (474 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.
- RISSER & LOCKE DITCH (1300630) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 400.0 cfs (max 400.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 19146 recorded day(s).
- PIROTH DITCH NO 3 (1300671) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 386.7 cfs (max 515.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.6 cfs across 6926 recorded day(s).
- ELZE DITCH NO 3 (1300626) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 50.0 cfs (max 50.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.7 cfs across 5892 recorded day(s).
- WILLOW DITCH (1300519) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 40.0 cfs (max 40.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.6 cfs across 522 recorded day(s).
- BIG CREEK DITCH (1301197) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.0 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.0 cfs across 582 recorded day(s).
- C R H DITCH (1300623) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 20.0 cfs (max 20.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.0 cfs across 5981 recorded day(s).
- KELLING BROS DESERT NO 2 (1300525) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 15.0 cfs (max 15.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 2822 recorded day(s).
- W A BELL DITCH NO 3 (1300848) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.1 cfs (max 10.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 9.7 cfs across 9621 recorded day(s).
- SMITH DITCH (1300855) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 12.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 9.4 cfs across 23104 recorded day(s).
- R KITZMAN DITCH NO 1 (1301053) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 10.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.8 cfs across 2382 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRAILS END OVERFLOW DIV (1301217) DWR↗ | 1950-12-31 | 1 | 55.0 | 0 | — |
| LAKE CREEK BYPASS DITCH (1301111) DWR↗ | 1939-05-26 | 1 | 30.0 | 0 | — |
| CHARLES SCHULZ DITCH A (1300524) DWR↗ | 1894-05-15 | 2 | 18.0 | 0 | — |
| ULA DITCH (1300862) DWR↗ | 1873-04-17 | 1 | 16.5 | 0 | — |
| W A BELL DITCH NO 3 (1300848) DWR↗ | 1871-06-01 | 3 | 9.7 | 0 | — |
| SMITH DITCH (1300855) DWR↗ | 1869-09-01 | 4 | 9.4 | 0 | — |
| FREER BECKWITH KENNICOTT (1300905) DWR↗ | 1875-05-10 | 1 | 8.6 | 0 | — |
| HOULE DITCH NO 6 (1300991) DWR↗ | 1890-01-15 | 1 | 7.9 | 0 | — |
| TEXAS CREEK MIN FLOW (1303025) DWR↗ | 1998-01-29 | 1 | 7.8 | 0 | — |
| ELDRIDGE SHIELDS JOHNSON (1300856) DWR↗ | 1871-05-01 | 2 | 7.6 | 0 | — |
| W R VORIS DITCH (1300990) DWR↗ | 1884-04-30 | 1 | 7.4 | 0 | — |
| ST ALMO DITCH (1300703) DWR↗ | 1878-06-01 | 8 | 7.1 | 0 | — |
| HORN CREEK RANCH HYDRO (1300679) DWR↗ | 1982-09-10 | 1 | 7.1 | 0 | — |
| JOHN HOWARD DITCH (1300999) DWR↗ | 1873-05-31 | 2 | 6.2 | 0 | — |
| BIG CREEK DITCH (1301197) DWR↗ | 1897-07-27 | 1 | 6.0 | 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… |
Call cascade
If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.
What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.
Pick a calling right
Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.
Or enter an administration number directly
DWR administration numbers encode appropriation and adjudication dates; lower is more senior.
Each row shows a streamgage where the upstream walk (headwater seed ± diversions ± returns ± tributaries) disagrees with the gage reading. Possible reasons include ungaged diversions/returns, channel losses, or structures with stale telemetry.
| Stream | Gage | R-mile | Predicted (cfs) | Observed (cfs) | Δ (cfs) | Reach (mi) | Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAINSTEM | GRAPE CREEK BELOW DEWEESE RESERVOIR (GRABDWCO) | 28.7 | 3.5 | 16.1 | +12.6 | 2.7 | Unaccounted +12.6 cfs gain over 2.7 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 ⇅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BELLN1CO | W A BELL DITCH NO 1 | 0.0 | 0% | 0 | +0 | +0 | 8.7 | SHORT_RECORD |
| BELLN3CO | W A BELL DITCH NO 3 | 0.0 | 0% | 0 | +0 | +0 | 8.6 | SHORT_RECORD |
| GRABDWCO | GRAPE CREEK BELOW DEWEESE RESERVOIR | 16.1 | 64% | 12 | +1 | +1 | 13.1 | SHORT_RECORD |
| TCCKTCCO | TEXAS CREEK NEAR TEXAS CREEK | 6.6 | 93% | 45 | -0 | +3 | 11.2 | SHORT_RECORD |
| GRAWESCO | GRAPE CREEK NEAR WESTCLIFFE, CO. | 3.5 | 16% | 0 | -0 | -1 | 98.5 | OK |
Call details in gantt above
3 alert(s) · 5 warning(s) · 4 info. Each gage contributes at most one flag per category (its single most-severe match), so this list shouldn't multiply-count the same underlying condition.