Arkansas: Portland to Fowler

Division 2 · Water District 14 · As of 2026-09-21 05:10 MDT · 3 weeks ago

Live · machine-built

Arkansas: Portland to Fowler on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 14 · 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.

30% of normal flow, week of 2026-09-21

0 calls the record places on it, 17 unsettled

The Arkansas River is well below normal for late September -- 30% of normal flow. No call that the record places on it is active right now. DWR's statements do not settle whether 17 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 2026-09-27 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 23 ranked gages are running at a median 95% of their own long-term norm for this window — 13 below a typical year, 10 at or above. Driest relative to its record: HUERFANO RIVER NEAR BOONE, CO., ranking 1st lowest of 48 years.

How this comparison is made

Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-09-27, compared with the same window in every year of its own record — so a gage is only ever measured against itself, and gages with no record in the window are counted out rather than guessed.

Gage flow trend & changepoints

What counts as a trend here

Computed 2026-10-11 19:58 from 38 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 38 gages with enough record, 7 are trending down and 0 up, and 5 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Huerfano River below Huerfano Valley Dam near Undercliffe, its annual mean flow changing -3.14 cfs per decade (-28.4% of its median annual flow) over 42 years (p<0.0001). The other 30 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
▸ ⚠️ Huerfano River below Huerfano Valley Dam near Undercliffe HUEBAMCO	↓ decreasing	-3.14 cfs -28.4%	p<0.001	42	~2008
▸ ⚠️ Arkansas River Tributary above Highway 227 at Pueblo ARK227CO	↓ decreasing	-15.30 cfs -45.8%	p<0.001	21	~2015
▸ Colorado Canal at Mile 3.8 near Boone COLCANCO	↓ decreasing	-14.59 cfs -14.1%	p=0.024	34	—
▸ Arkansas River at Nepesta ARKANECO	↓ decreasing	-189.36 cfs -31.7%	p=0.024	20	—
▸ Salt Creek near Mouth below Pueblo SALTMOCO	↓ decreasing	-3.39 cfs -6.0%	p=0.029	17	~2015
▸ Arkansas River near Pueblo ARKPUNCO	↓ decreasing	-24.54 cfs -3.6%	p=0.045	80	~1929
▸ Huerfano River near Boone HUEBOOCO	↓ decreasing	-3.27 cfs -15.9%	p=0.047	46	—
▸ Arkansas River above Pueblo ARKPUECO	no clear trend	-33.94 cfs -5.8%	p=0.071	60	~2000

⚠️ 2 gages flagged: their records may have quietly shifted against their neighbours, so treat their trends with caution.

How drift is detected

Every gage's annual flows are compared against each neighbour's as a double-mass curve (Searcy & Hardison, USGS WSP 1541-B); a Pettitt step test looks for a break in the ratio. A gage is flagged only when the breaks AGREE across its references, and a break against an already-suspect gage is never counted against a healthy one. A double-mass break means the ratio between two gages changed, not that either gage is faulty: a new diversion, a reservoir, or an import changes that ratio exactly as a rating shift does. Screening aid for expert review, never a measurement verdict.

30 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. 28 gage(s) and 29 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1965. Every historical claim below is checked against this: long-term shifts that co-move with the growth of the network carry an explicit measurement-evolution caution, and abandonment screens whose idleness begins before the modern reporting era are flagged †.

Decade	Gages with data (median yr)	Structures reporting (median yr)
1890s	1	0
1900s	1	0
1910s	2	6
1920s	2	6
1930s	2	6
1940s	6	10
1950s	3	9
1960s	5	11
1970s	5	12
1980s	6	15
1990s	8	12
2000s	12	20
2010s	14	26
2020s	28	27

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 1% of 3620 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 (1908 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.

ARKANSAS RIVER TRIBUTARY ABOVE HWY 227 AT PUEBLO: reach shifted from -1136 cfs to -678 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.032, 22 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [16 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +0.4 ft (1963–2023, no_trend)]
HUERFANO RIVER NEAR BOONE, CO.: reach shifted from -1917 cfs to -1029 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.004, 45 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [38 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -188.7 ft (1900–2023, increasing)]
ROCKY FORD HIGHLINE CANAL AT MILE 4.9 NEAR BOONE: reach shifted from +187 cfs to -526 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.005, 42 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=-0.65) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [29 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -174.6 ft (1900–2020, increasing)]
ARKANSAS RIVER ABOVE PUEBLO: reach shifted from -44 cfs to +773 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.005, 28 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=0.71) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change]
ARKANSAS RIVER NEAR AVONDALE, CO.: reach shifted from +94 cfs to +1151 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 64 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=0.66) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [31 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -2.3 ft (1962–2023, no_trend)]
ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, CO: reach shifted from -228 cfs to +649 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.031, 77 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=0.42) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [11 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -0.6 ft (1962–2023, no_trend)]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 541 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 14 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 61-year window with full coverage (1966–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 93% 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 2026-09-27)

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.

1413315 (diversion): +6.6 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413316 (diversion): +6.6 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1414509 (diversion): +6.6 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413317 (diversion): +6.6 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413318 (diversion): +6.6 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
SCMWD PUMP STATION NO 1 (diversion): -6.4 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413818 (diversion): -6.4 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413301 (diversion): -6.4 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1414596 (diversion): -6.4 cfs (20% of that reach's correction)
1413300 (diversion): -6.4 cfs (20% 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_20260928 (imported 2026-10-04) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.

Check	State	What was measured
gage freshness	stale	newest gage reading is 14 day(s) old (target 7)
diversion record	expected-lag	newest diversion record is 346 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	1% of schematic structures have data

Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 299,698 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 — 99.21% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 15 co-listed station(s) and 161,752 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.

38 gage(s) / 286,758 daily values (1894-10-01–2026-09-27); 82 structure(s) with diversion records; 1361 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 ↗

18,025 water-level measurements across 541 monitored well(s) — 498 alluvial, 0 bedrock — plus 7 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 107 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 26 declining, 25 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ SC02006335BBC	alluvial	-2.79	18 yr	0.0019
▸ SC02006436BCD	alluvial	-2.39	19 yr	0.0001
▸ SC02006328CCD1	alluvial	-2.19	19 yr	0.0
▸ SC02006334BAA2	alluvial	-2.13	24 yr	0.0001
▸ SC02006334CAA	alluvial	-2.11	15 yr	0.0002
▸ ARK-008 MAYES WELL NO 1	alluvial	-2.1	26 yr	0.0112
▸ SC02006333ABA2	alluvial	-1.91	29 yr	0.0
▸ SC02006336DCD1	alluvial	-1.86	22 yr	0.036

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.

ARKANSAS RIVER TRIBUTARY ABOVE HWY 227 AT PUEBLO: 16 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +0.4 ft (1963–2023, no_trend, p=0.5912). Glover screen: 0.2 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.2–0.2 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

HUERFANO RIVER NEAR BOONE, CO.: 38 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -188.7 ft (1900–2023, increasing, p=0.0)

ROCKY FORD HIGHLINE CANAL AT MILE 4.9 NEAR BOONE: 29 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -174.6 ft (1900–2020, increasing, p=0.0041)

ARKANSAS RIVER ABOVE PUEBLO: 5 alluvial well(s) nearby

ARKANSAS RIVER NEAR AVONDALE, CO.: 31 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -2.3 ft (1962–2023, no_trend, p=0.4808)

ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, CO: 11 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.6 ft (1962–2023, no_trend, p=0.1563)

ARKANSAS RIVER AT MOFFAT STREET AT PUEBLO, CO: 9 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +1.8 ft (1963–1999, no_trend, p=0.1733). Glover screen: 0.2 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.2–0.2 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

SALT CREEK NEAR MOUTH BELOW PUEBLO: 67 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.6 ft (1934–2023, no_trend, p=0.1961). Glover screen: 0.1 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.1–0.1 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).

Wells labeled by administrative world before anything else is said about them: tributary alluvium participates in the priority system; designated-basin and Denver Basin bedrock aquifers are governed differently and are excluded from stream-connection reasoning. Read bedrock declines differently too: deep bedrock aquifers recharge negligibly on human timescales, so a falling bedrock level is storage mining — effectively permanent — not a drought response that a wet year undoes. All screens advisory.

7,481 well permits on file — not decreed rights

46% household or domestic use

40 ft median depth, 5,015 wells reporting

61% are constructed wells; 21% 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

3,470 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1950 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 1992, and the busiest year was 1960 with 229. The district’s 1,635 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 7,481 above counts every permit on file here; 2,376 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.

Show the monitoring holes too (1,635; the scale changes)

water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown

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
1950	2	0	2	2
1953	27	0	27	29
1954	53	0	53	82
1955	46	0	46	128
1956	34	0	34	162
1957	33	0	33	195
1958	8	0	8	203
1959	100	0	100	303
1960	229	0	229	532
1961	10	0	10	542
1962	13	0	13	555
1963	19	0	19	574
1964	29	0	29	603
1965	37	0	37	640
1966	18	0	18	658
1967	19	0	19	677
1968	18	0	18	695
1969	18	0	18	713
1970	13	0	13	726
1971	32	0	32	758
1972	184	0	184	942
1973	91	0	91	1,033
1974	46	0	46	1,079
1975	25	0	25	1,104
1976	59	0	59	1,163
1977	107	0	107	1,270
1978	47	0	47	1,317
1979	42	0	42	1,359
1980	38	0	38	1,397
1981	28	0	28	1,425
1982	19	0	19	1,444
1983	19	0	19	1,463
1984	20	0	20	1,483
1985	29	0	29	1,512
1986	37	0	37	1,549
1987	40	1	39	1,589
1988	27	4	23	1,616
1989	43	17	26	1,659
1990	78	38	40	1,737
1991	74	31	43	1,811
1992	81	56	25	1,892
1993	50	17	33	1,942
1994	78	53	25	2,020
1995	132	3	129	2,152
1996	176	29	147	2,328
1997	143	65	78	2,471
1998	114	51	63	2,585
1999	104	21	83	2,689
2000	91	24	67	2,780
2001	482	371	111	3,262
2002	194	106	88	3,456
2003	159	29	130	3,615
2004	130	84	46	3,745
2005	95	49	46	3,840
2006	55	10	45	3,895
2007	45	11	34	3,940
2008	53	28	25	3,993
2009	37	9	28	4,030
2010	43	13	30	4,073
2011	58	21	37	4,131
2012	66	18	48	4,197
2013	49	15	34	4,246
2014	58	25	33	4,304
2015	68	21	47	4,372
2016	93	71	22	4,465
2017	86	21	65	4,551
2018	102	51	51	4,653
2019	106	69	37	4,759
2020	70	42	28	4,829
2021	55	28	27	4,884
2022	34	10	24	4,918
2023	34	22	12	4,952
2024	21	1	20	4,973
2025	103	80	23	5,076
2026	29	20	9	5,105

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

35 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (4,631 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 2,500 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. 23 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.

T21S R64W
1,285 · 80% here

T21S R63W
468 · 77% here

T20S R65W
347 · 68% here

T20S R64W
334 · 74% here

T21S R62W
285 · 91% here

T20S R62W
201

T21S R65W
199

T21S R61W
180 · 89% here

T20S R63W
143

T21S R67W
133

T22S R66W
125 · 52% here

T21S R68W
124 · 94% here

T22S R60W
111 · 91% here

T22S R67W
104 · 79% here

T22S R68W
103 · 59% here

T16S R62W
53 · 52% here

T20S R61W
53

T22S R63W
49 · 83% here

T21S R66W
42 · 89% here

T19S R60W
36 · 79% here

T23S R63W
30 · 57% here

T18S R61W
29

T21S R60W
29

T20S R67W
23 · 72% here

unnamed alluvium other named faint = where the permits naming it stopped (10th–90th pct) · solid = their screens · tick = median · ft below ground as filed

Every township here, as a table

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
T21S R64W 6th PM	80%	alluvium	13	22 / 34 / 35	17 / 19 / 20	32 / 34 / 36
T21S R64W 6th PM	80%	unnamed	1,271	25 / 35 / 50	12 / 20 / 33	25 / 35 / 50
T21S R63W 6th PM	77%	unnamed	468	26 / 38 / 60	16 / 24 / 40	28 / 39 / 62
T20S R65W 6th PM	68%	unnamed	345	20 / 31 / 162	10 / 19 / 122	19 / 34 / 166
T20S R64W 6th PM	74%	unnamed	331	24 / 40 / 69	20 / 26 / 43	34 / 44 / 61
T21S R62W 6th PM	91%	unnamed	281	28 / 40 / 52	11 / 24 / 40	28 / 42 / 60
T20S R62W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	201	23 / 45 / 60	10 / 28 / 42	22 / 42 / 58
T21S R65W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	192	22 / 36 / 581	4 / 20 / 520	15 / 35 / 580
T21S R65W 6th PM	95%	other named	7	571 / 580 / 886	490 / 500 / 510	560 / 580 / 593
T21S R61W 6th PM	89%	unnamed	178	30 / 40 / 54	14 / 20 / 30	26 / 40 / 55
T20S R63W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	143	28 / 45 / 58	16 / 25 / 34	35 / 42 / 54
T21S R67W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	110	250 / 485 / 575	208 / 410 / 506	258 / 480 / 565
T21S R67W 6th PM	96%	other named	23	250 / 491 / 571	210 / 460 / 505	249 / 488 / 545
T22S R66W 6th PM	52%	other named	13	368 / 525 / 545	422 / 485 / 525	480 / 532 / 545
T22S R66W 6th PM	52%	unnamed	112	302 / 528 / 599	258 / 460 / 516	354 / 530 / 580
T21S R68W 6th PM	94%	unnamed	92	151 / 430 / 609	99 / 380 / 545	165 / 460 / 584
T21S R68W 6th PM	94%	other named	31	385 / 510 / 739	168 / 452 / 692	265 / 494 / 739
T22S R60W 6th PM	91%	unnamed	108	25 / 37 / 52	10 / 22 / 39	27 / 40 / 52
T22S R67W 6th PM	79%	other named	8	214 / 280 / 483	140 / 222 / 335	203 / 278 / 371
T22S R67W 6th PM	79%	unnamed	96	166 / 291 / 700	160 / 270 / 644	191 / 305 / 700
T22S R68W 6th PM	59%	unnamed	102	20 / 305 / 700	20 / 300 / 600	40 / 400 / 700
T16S R62W 6th PM	52%	unnamed	48	78 / 150 / 298	60 / 93 / 180	78 / 165 / 306
T20S R61W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	52	36 / 65 / 72	20 / 38 / 61	52 / 65 / 81
T22S R63W 6th PM	83%	unnamed	45	42 / 75 / 1,152	29 / 40 / 828	52 / 100 / 980
T21S R66W 6th PM	89%	unnamed	35	25 / 550 / 1,038	480 / 520 / 596	525 / 600 / 750
T21S R66W 6th PM	89%	other named	7	531 / 550 / 670	—	—
T19S R60W 6th PM	79%	unnamed	36	34 / 79 / 124	10 / 40 / 86	35 / 79 / 128
T23S R63W 6th PM	57%	unnamed	25	29 / 500 / 686	19 / 255 / 465	28 / 365 / 538
T23S R63W 6th PM	57%	other named	5	527 / 550 / 883	—	—
T18S R61W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	29	48 / 98 / 121	29 / 50 / 81	76 / 100 / 167
T21S R60W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	29	28 / 44 / 86	19 / 31 / 53	37 / 49 / 103
T20S R67W 6th PM	72%	unnamed	16	148 / 400 / 2,488	108 / 359 / 1,039	214 / 410 / 1,173
T20S R67W 6th PM	72%	other named	7	562 / 562 / 690	495 / 502 / 507	562 / 562 / 710
T20S R60W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	21	40 / 70 / 114	18 / 40 / 72	47 / 60 / 108
T24S R64W 6th PM	43%	unnamed	19	53 / 500 / 664	218 / 405 / 575	269 / 510 / 604
T19S R61W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	18	54 / 86 / 115	25 / 55 / 74	53 / 97 / 117
T22S R62W 6th PM	65%	unnamed	16	28 / 437 / 1,678	—	—
T18S R63W 6th PM	89%	unnamed	13	23 / 47 / 296	8 / 60 / 162	25 / 120 / 364
T23S R64W 6th PM	63%	unnamed	10	55 / 280 / 355	20 / 58 / 219	60 / 98 / 279
T24S R62W 6th PM	79%	unnamed	10	97 / 265 / 812	—	—
T19S R62W 6th PM	93%	unnamed	9	25 / 94 / 120	—	—
T22S R61W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	9	44 / 1,350 / 1,482	—	—
T23S R61W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	743 / 1,120 / 1,216	—	—
T23S R62W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	257 / 638 / 896	—	—

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 ↗

14 reservoir(s) with 17,676 storage measurement(s), 1950–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 411 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)
▸ PUEBLO RESERVOIR (1403526)	260,262	2018-01-23	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE MEREDITH (1403525)	37,095	1997-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE HENRY (1403524)	5,406	1997-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ BEEMAN RESERVOIR (1403520)	1,096	1997-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ DOTSON RESERVOIR (1403849)	1,020	2010-04-23	—	—	dossier →
▸ HUERFANO VALLEY RES (1403821)	975	1997-04-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ STONEWALL SPRINGS SOUTH RESERVOIR (1403593)	411	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE MINNEQUA (1503693)	400	2018-10-31	—	—	dossier →

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 27th-driest week 39 in 91 years of record at ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, CO (as of 2026-09-21; this week’s flow sits at the 30th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Pueblo County is 53% in D2 severe drought (2026-10-06). 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 1935, week by week

Each thin row is a year at ARKANSAS RIVER AT NEPESTA BRIDGE NEAR NEPESTA, 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.

This year against its analogs

Over the 39 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2002 (mean gap 10.5 percentile points; next closest 2012 (14.4), 1954 (16.9)). The analog’s remainder is drawn as context — its ending is what happened to it, not a forecast for this year.

The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000

Mean share of area in each class across Pueblo county — the counties this district’s gages sit in, which overlap the district imperfectly. The Drought Monitor weighs soils, vegetation and local reports; it is CONTEXT beside the river’s own record above, not the water-rights picture.

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 2002 — 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 (254 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
unnamed dry spell	2026-03-16 → 2026-09-21	27	4th (2026-08-03)	not yet	—
unnamed dry spell	2023-12-11 → 2024-05-20	23	25th (2024-02-12)	not yet	—
the 2020-22 drought	2020-09-14 → 2023-07-03	146	12th (2021-02-15)	not yet	—
the 2018 drought	2018-07-23 → 2019-06-17	47	14th (2018-11-26)	4 weeks	not yet (16 of 22 wells still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2014-03-31 → 2014-08-18	20	22nd (2014-05-12)	3 weeks	1 yr (46 wells, 4 still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2012-04-30 → 2013-11-18	81	3rd (2013-01-07)	42 weeks	3 yr (47 wells, 11 still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2011-02-28 → 2011-08-22	25	24th (2011-05-02)	3 weeks	5 yr (47 wells, 11 still below)
the 2002 drought	2002-04-22 → 2004-09-06	124	4th (2002-10-21)	109 weeks	5 yr (15 wells, 4 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1978-12-04 → 1979-06-18	28	17th (1979-01-29)	2 weeks	2 yr (65 wells, 11 still below)
the 1977 drought	1977-07-18 → 1978-08-14	56	12th (1977-10-31)	46 weeks	6 yr (75 wells, 27 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1974-09-02 → 1975-03-03	26	21st (1974-11-25)	20 weeks	18 yr (93 wells, 41 still below)
the 1963-64 drought	1963-07-15 → 1964-02-17	31	22nd (1963-08-26)	64 weeks	6 yr (78 wells, 26 still below)
the 1950s drought	1956-09-03 → 1957-06-03	39	14th (1956-12-17)	0 weeks	1 yr (6 wells)
the 1950s drought	1954-06-21 → 1955-11-14	73	11th (1954-11-22)	17 weeks	2 yr (6 wells)

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 $3,076,450 in drought-caused claims across Pueblo county — 6.5% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2012 ($356,114).

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 (1,032 rights across 92 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is +0.11 — 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 ↗

6 systems touch this district (6 community systems reporting 127,157 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); none carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record.

System	Serves	Source	Here
PUEBLO BOARD OF WW	114,070	Surface water	44% of its area
ST CHARLES MESA WD	9,690	Surface water	91% of its area
AVONDALE WSD	1,615	Groundwater	100% of its area
FOWLER TOWN OF	1,169	Groundwater under the influence of surface water	24% of its area
BAXTER WATER AND SERVICES	350	Groundwater	100% of its area
BOONE TOWN OF	263	Groundwater	100% of its area

Instream-flow rights held by the state

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-11 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗

The Board's tabulation lists no instream-flow reach or natural lake level in this district. Statewide →

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 1861-04-01 to 2022-11-15. 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. 2 abandonment screens and 13 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: 1611 across 1361 structure(s); 1083 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.

COMANCHE PUMP STATION (1400618) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-14 (5+ days) — call at HARDSCRABBLE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
PBWW NORTHSIDE INTAKE (1400589) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-23 (16+ days) — call at LEWELLING-MCCORMICK curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
COLLIER DITCH (1400538) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-23 (64+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
EXCELSIOR DITCH (1400539) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-23 (64+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
COMANCHE PUMP STATION (1400618) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-23 (5+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-12 (141+ days) — call at LUCERO DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-22 (10+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
ELLIS DITCH (1400654) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-20 (15+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
COLLIER DITCH (1400538) DWR↗ stopped 2025-04-30 (7+ days) — call at FERNANDEZ DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
ELLIS DITCH (1400654) DWR↗ stopped 2025-03-15 (46+ days) — call at CHILILI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗ stopped 2025-03-13 (36+ days) — call at TITSWORTH DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
ELLIS DITCH (1400654) DWR↗ stopped 2024-12-31 (54+ days) — call at BACA IRRIGATING 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
BESSEMER DITCH (1400533) DWR↗	1861-04-01	96.3% / 56.5%	0.0% / 0.0%
1400713 DWR↗	1926-04-14	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
WELTON DITCH (1400661) DWR↗	1861-04-15	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
EXCELSIOR DITCH (1400539) DWR↗	1887-05-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
STONEWALL SPRINGS CENTRAL RESERVOIR (1403595) DWR↗	1887-05-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
STONEWALL SPRINGS SOUTH RESERVOIR (1403593) DWR↗	1887-05-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
STONEWALL SPRINGS EAST RESERVOIR (1403596) DWR↗	1887-05-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗	1888-02-02	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
1400782 DWR↗	1993-08-17	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
PBWW SOUTHSIDE INTAKE (1400590) DWR↗	1861-04-01	96.3% / 56.5%	0.0% / 0.0%
PUEBLO FISH HATCHERY PIPELINE (1400737) DWR↗	1987-12-31	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
COLLIER DITCH (1400538) DWR↗	1887-03-10	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (2 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 ~1965 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

HERMOSILLA DITCH (1400656) DWR↗ (1863-04-25, 8.0 cfs decreed): last active 1924 — 41 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1965) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
MEADOWBROOK WELL "A" (1405129) DWR↗ (1967-10-15, 0.4 cfs decreed): last active 1949 — 16 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1965) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse

Compliance screens (13 advisory flags)

Screened 36 of 1361 structures with rights (42 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.

HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 95.7 cfs (max 1000.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 60.0 cfs across 32209 recorded day(s).
PBWW NORTHSIDE INTAKE (1400589) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 69.6 cfs (max 597.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 25.5 cfs across 77277 recorded day(s).
1400782 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 50.4 cfs (max 55.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 33.8 cfs across 2810 recorded day(s).
PBWW SOUTHSIDE INTAKE (1400590) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 36.1 cfs (max 110.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 31.8 cfs across 47678 recorded day(s).
COMANCHE PUMP STATION (1400618) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.4 cfs (max 87.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 19.9 cfs across 48164 recorded day(s).
1400591 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 26.0 cfs (max 65.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 11.8 cfs across 30536 recorded day(s).
1400663 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 23.7 cfs (max 45.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.5 cfs across 34985 recorded day(s).
SIX MILE ARROYO DITCH (1400553) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 4.0 cfs (max 4.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.0 cfs across 4296 recorded day(s).
1400534 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 2.9 cfs (max 3.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.9 cfs across 27918 recorded day(s).
HAVER DITCH EXTENSION (1400577) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 2.5 cfs (max 2.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.5 cfs across 1654 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Conditional?
BESSEMER DITCH (1400533) DWR↗	1861-04-01	22	392.6	—
1400713 DWR↗	1926-04-14	2	230.0	—
WELTON DITCH (1400661) DWR↗	1861-04-15	3	131.2	—
EXCELSIOR DITCH (1400539) DWR↗	1887-05-01	3	120.0	—
HUERFANO VALLEY DITCH (1400657) DWR↗	1888-02-02	2	60.0	—
STONEWALL SPRINGS SOUTH RESERVOIR (1403593) DWR↗	1887-05-01	3	60.0	yes
STONEWALL SPRINGS CENTRAL RESERVOIR (1403595) DWR↗	1887-05-01	3	60.0	yes
STONEWALL SPRINGS EAST RESERVOIR (1403596) DWR↗	1887-05-01	3	60.0	yes
1400782 DWR↗	1993-08-17	1	33.8	yes
PBWW SOUTHSIDE INTAKE (1400590) DWR↗	1861-04-01	16	31.8	—
PUEBLO FISH HATCHERY PIPELINE (1400737) DWR↗	1987-12-31	1	31.0	—
COLLIER DITCH (1400538) DWR↗	1887-03-10	2	26.0	—
PBWW NORTHSIDE INTAKE (1400589) DWR↗	1861-04-01	16	25.5	—
ELLIS DITCH (1400654) DWR↗	1888-12-12	2	20.0	—
COMANCHE PUMP STATION (1400618) DWR↗	1870-03-21	8	19.9	—

Recent inventory & legal-document changes

2026-10-10 — call set: FORT LYON CANAL (39703)
2026-10-10 — call set: JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR (39705)
2026-10-10 — call released: 39701
2026-10-10 — call released: 39694
2026-10-09 — call set: FORT LYON CANAL (39701)
2026-10-09 — call released: 39660
2026-10-09 — call released: 39675
2026-10-09 — call released: 39659

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

3 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 (19 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 3 filings, with excerpts

Case	What it asks	County	Excerpt
`2025CW3012`	plan for augmentation, new underground right	—	CASE NO. 2025CW3012; TITAN AU, INC., 8480 E. Orchard Rd., Suite 4900, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorney: John T. Howe, Hoskin, Farina & Kampf, P.C., 200 Grand Avenue, Suite 400…
`2026CW3037` 1603718	—	—	CASE NO. 2026CW3037; MARIA LAKES GRAZING ASSOCIATION, LLC, c/o Donald E. Siecke, Manager, 7343 S. Alton Way, Ste. 100, Centennial, CO 80122 (Please address all pleadings and inquiries regarding this matter to Applicant’s attorneys: Karl D. Ohlsen, Beth Ann J. …
`2026CW3138`	reasonable diligence	OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN PARK	CASE NUMBER 2026CW3138 MICHAEL STALL, 77 Sugar Creek Center Blvd., # 210, Sugar Land, TX, 77478. Philip E. Lopez, Eric K. Trout, Fairfield and Woods, P.C., 1801 California St, Suite 2600, Denver, CO, 80202. APPLICATION FOR A FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN …

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
LAVERNCLAUS LLC	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2026-04-30	1407009	plan file
FILLMORE GRAVEL PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1407853	plan file
MARTIN MARIETTA'S RICH PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1407808	plan file
PUEBLO EAST PIT AT EVANS #2	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1407820	plan file
ST BARBARA SAND & GRAVEL PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1407803	plan file
AMRIZE RED CREEK QUARRY - 25CW3032	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Pending	—	1407852	plan file
PUEBLO EAST PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Pending	—	1407801	plan file
AGRA - COLORADO CANAL RETURN FLOWS	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Division Review	—	1707808	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 2026-10-12 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗

2 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
ARKANSAS R. AT ST CHARLES MESA DIVER. AT PUEBLO,CO ↗	17.7	959			2026-10-12 11:45
ARKANSAS RIVER NEAR AVONDALE, CO.	16.6	1040	7.4		2026-10-12 12:00

Where water has been sampled

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

The portal lists 3,751 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith 11020005, 43% of the district; Upper Arkansas 11020002, 27% of the district; Huerfano 11020006, 19% of the district; Chico 11020004, 10% of the district), of which 191 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 (92), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (64), Colorado River Watch (22). Most-sampled groups: Physical, Nutrient, Organics, Other, Inorganics, Major, Non-metals. Every station as a file ↗

Results themselves are not fetched here; USGS samples added after March 2024 may not be in the portal's legacy profiles yet.

Drinking water

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗

6 community systems touch this district. None carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record. EPA sampled 2 of them for PFAS in 2023–25; none had PFOA or PFOS at or above the 2024 limit.

System	Serves	EPA record	PFAS (UCMR 5)	Lead, latest 90th pct
PUEBLO BOARD OF WW	114,070	clean, last 12 quarters	none detected	0.0023 mg/L
ST CHARLES MESA WD	9,690	clean, last 12 quarters	1 detected, under the limits	0.002 mg/L
AVONDALE WSD	1,615	clean, last 12 quarters	not sampled	0.0056 mg/L
FOWLER TOWN OF	1,169	9 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0 mg/L
BAXTER WATER AND SERVICES	350	12 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.002 mg/L
BOONE TOWN OF	263	5 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0045 mg/L

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…

Topology cross-check: 2 parent disagreements, 11 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 13 streams, 11 agree. Know this water? Tell us →

Stream	This site routes it to	DWR routes it to
Spring Branch	the mainstem	Chico Creek
Galbeth Creek	the mainstem	Rock Creek

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

Chicosa Creek (28 mi) · Kramer Creek (23 mi) · Rock Creek (21 mi) · Salt Creek (20 mi) · Haynes Creek (20 mi) · Peck Creek (18 mi) · Rush Creek (14 mi) · Boggs Creek (12 mi)

Something wrong on this page? Tell us →

Arkansas: Portland to Fowler

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

Reach gain/loss shifts (1950–2026)

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-09-27)

Data provenance & quality

Groundwater

Well map

3D aquifer x-ray

Water-table trends

Stream corridors — the surface connection

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

Drought

Right now

Every year since 1935, 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 (2 screens)

Compliance screens (13 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?