Arkansas: Fowler to Las Animas

Division 2 · Water District 17 · As of 2026-09-22 05:16 MDT · 3 weeks ago

Live · machine-built

Arkansas: Fowler to Las Animas on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 17 · 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.

48% of normal flow, week of 2026-09-21

1 call the record places on it, 17 unsettled

The Arkansas River is well below normal for late September -- 48% of normal flow. 1 call stands against it right now; the most senior right calling dates to 1884. 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 29 ranked gages are running at a median 39% of their own long-term norm for this window — 21 below a typical year, 8 at or above. Driest relative to its record: ARF HEADGATE 27 (BENTS FORT), ranking 1st lowest of 10 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 20:00 from 57 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 57 gages with enough record, 11 are trending down and 1 up, and 13 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Purgatoire River at Ninemile Dam near Higbee, its annual mean flow changing -7.17 cfs per decade (-12.4% of its median annual flow) over 101 years (p<0.0001). The other 41 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
▸ Purgatoire River at Ninemile Dam near Higbee PURNINCO	↓ decreasing	-7.17 cfs -12.4%	p<0.001	101	~1969
▸ Apishapa River near Fowler APIFOWCO	↓ decreasing	-2.12 cfs -11.5%	p<0.001	88	~1987
▸ ⚠️ Highland Canal HILCANCO	↓ decreasing	-0.69 cfs -78.3%	p<0.001	25	~2010
▸ Purgatoire River near Las Animas PURLASCO	↓ decreasing	-8.48 cfs -14.5%	p<0.001	86	~1969
▸ ⚠️ Fort Lyon Aug Station at Horse Creek FLYAUGCO	↓ decreasing	-1.73 cfs	p<0.001	12	~2015
▸ Ninemile Canal at Ninemile Dam near Higbee NMCHIGCO	↓ decreasing	-1.69 cfs -21.0%	p=0.007	46	~2005
▸ Consolidated Ditch near Riverdale CONDITCO	↓ decreasing	-6.85 cfs -17.8%	p=0.007	22	~2011
▸ Timpas Creek near Rocky Ford TIMNRFCO	↑ increasing	+3.68 cfs +6.6%	p=0.009	21	—
▸ Fort Lyon Storage Canal FLSCANCO	↓ decreasing	-18.93 cfs -22.1%	p=0.017	29	~1998
▸ Adobe Valley Ditch ADOVALCO	↓ decreasing	-0.35 cfs	p=0.031	16	—
▸ Arkansas River near Rocky Ford ARKROCCO	↓ decreasing	-62.19 cfs -15.6%	p=0.031	33	—
▸ Holbrook Canal at Mile 3.4 near Rocky Ford HOLCANCO	↓ decreasing	-8.24 cfs -13.1%	p=0.031	39	~2001
▸ Arkansas River at Catlin Dam near Fowler ARKCATCO	no clear trend	-63.26 cfs -13.2%	p=0.062	35	~2000
▸ Arkansas River at Las Animas ARKLASCO	no clear trend	+7.99 cfs +4.8%	p=0.125	86	~1981
▸ Arkansas River and Catlin Canal (Combined) ARKCACCO	no clear trend	-74.61 cfs -11.9%	p=0.173	28	~2000
▸ Catlin Canal at Catlin Dam near Fowler CATCANCO	no clear trend	-2.43 cfs -1.7%	p=0.380	46	~2001

⚠️ 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.

41 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. 43 gage(s) and 49 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~2017. 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)
1910s	1	10
1920s	4	12
1930s	3	13
1940s	8	13
1950s	6	13
1960s	5	14
1970s	7	40
1980s	12	24
1990s	26	30
2000s	30	40
2010s	38	47
2020s	40	49

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 1% of 3833 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 (4051 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 AT LA JUNTA, CO: reach shifted from +302 cfs to -135 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.000, 77 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [74 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +2.3 ft (1959–2018, increasing)]
ARKANSAS RIVER AT LAS ANIMAS, CO.: reach shifted from -93 cfs to +329 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.002, 77 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.51) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [43 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +0.3 ft (1955–2023, no_trend)]
TIMPAS CREEK AT MOUTH NEAR SWINK, CO.: reach shifted from -270 cfs to +82 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 58 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [33 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +2549.3 ft (1959–2023, no_trend)]
HOLBROOK CANAL AT MILE 3.4 NEAR ROCKY FORD: reach shifted from -7 cfs to +125 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.010, 41 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.44) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [19 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -0.3 ft (1960–2011, decreasing)]
PURGATOIRE RIVER NEAR LAS ANIMAS, CO.: reach shifted from -43 cfs to -255 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.001, 77 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [17 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +1585.6 ft (1959–2023, no_trend)]
HORSE CREEK AT HIGHWAY 194: reach shifted from -114 cfs to +23 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 34 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.6) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [21 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +95267.5 ft (1958–2018, increasing)]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 1087 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 22 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 88-year window with full coverage (1939–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 4 gage(s) explains 84% 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.

CLUTE SPRING DITCH (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
1714550 (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
PITZER POND (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
PITZER POND (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
1714387 (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
PEARCE SPRING (return): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
1714308 (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
1713339 (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
1713340 (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% of that reach's correction)
ROCKY FORD HL AG ST @ PONDS (diversion): +1.3 cfs (4% 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 667,373 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 — 95.75% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 17 co-listed station(s) and 225,167 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.

57 gage(s) / 583,005 daily values (1912-04-01–2026-09-27); 175 structure(s) with diversion records; 1909 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 ↗

21,337 water-level measurements across 1087 monitored well(s) — 917 alluvial, 29 bedrock — plus 5 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 287 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 52 declining, 65 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ SC01406125DDB1	unknown	-9.13	35 yr	0.0002
▸ HC35	unknown	-5.37	14 yr	0.0012
▸ HC34	unknown	-5.34	14 yr	0.0
▸ HC13	alluvial	-4.76	14 yr	0.002
▸ HC37	unknown	-4.53	14 yr	0.0002
▸ HC20	alluvial	-4.35	14 yr	0.0086
▸ HC33	unknown	-4.28	14 yr	0.0
▸ HC38	unknown	-3.8	14 yr	0.0002

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 AT LA JUNTA, CO: 74 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +2.3 ft (1959–2018, increasing, p=0.0286). 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).

ARKANSAS RIVER AT LAS ANIMAS, CO.: 43 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +0.3 ft (1955–2023, no_trend, p=0.0527). 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).

TIMPAS CREEK AT MOUTH NEAR SWINK, CO.: 33 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +2549.3 ft (1959–2023, no_trend, p=0.7467)

HOLBROOK CANAL AT MILE 3.4 NEAR ROCKY FORD: 19 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.3 ft (1960–2011, decreasing, p=0.0029)

PURGATOIRE RIVER NEAR LAS ANIMAS, CO.: 17 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +1585.6 ft (1959–2023, no_trend, p=0.8575)

HORSE CREEK AT HIGHWAY 194: 21 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +95267.5 ft (1958–2018, increasing, p=0.0063)

APISHAPA RIVER NEAR FOWLER, CO: 47 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +0.1 ft (1959–2023, no_trend, p=0.8327)

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.

10,072 well permits on file — not decreed rights

48% household or domestic use

74 ft median depth, 6,847 wells reporting

62% are constructed wells; 15% 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

6,254 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1900 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 1997, and the busiest year was 1960 with 246. The district’s 872 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 10,072 above counts every permit on file here; 2,946 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.

Show the monitoring holes too (872; the scale changes)

water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown 7 issued before 1950 are in the table, not the bars

The counts by year, as a table

Located well permits with an issue date in this district, by issue year. Monitoring holes are the two DWR monitoring categories; water-supply is everything else.
Year	Issued	Monitoring holes	Water-supply	Issued through that year
1900	1	0	1	1
1934	6	0	6	7
1953	40	0	40	47
1954	104	0	104	151
1955	129	0	129	280
1956	76	0	76	356
1957	53	0	53	409
1958	15	0	15	424
1959	96	0	96	520
1960	246	0	246	766
1961	22	0	22	788
1962	15	0	15	803
1963	24	0	24	827
1964	46	0	46	873
1965	45	0	45	918
1966	21	0	21	939
1967	12	0	12	951
1968	15	0	15	966
1969	25	0	25	991
1970	8	0	8	999
1971	25	0	25	1,024
1972	105	0	105	1,129
1973	60	0	60	1,189
1974	30	0	30	1,219
1975	21	0	21	1,240
1976	55	0	55	1,295
1977	99	0	99	1,394
1978	74	0	74	1,468
1979	89	0	89	1,557
1980	54	0	54	1,611
1981	44	0	44	1,655
1982	53	1	52	1,708
1983	56	10	46	1,764
1984	60	0	60	1,824
1985	53	1	52	1,877
1986	80	4	76	1,957
1987	99	2	97	2,056
1988	64	4	60	2,120
1989	101	22	79	2,221
1990	105	8	97	2,326
1991	116	23	93	2,442
1992	108	18	90	2,550
1993	143	27	116	2,693
1994	163	42	121	2,856
1995	164	24	140	3,020
1996	243	36	207	3,263
1997	270	46	224	3,533
1998	271	63	208	3,804
1999	240	29	211	4,044
2000	221	25	196	4,265
2001	161	3	158	4,426
2002	286	59	227	4,712
2003	270	61	209	4,982
2004	178	52	126	5,160
2005	151	49	102	5,311
2006	116	33	83	5,427
2007	68	2	66	5,495
2008	99	11	88	5,594
2009	65	3	62	5,659
2010	91	24	67	5,750
2011	78	2	76	5,828
2012	85	7	78	5,913
2013	94	9	85	6,007
2014	56	6	50	6,063
2015	99	24	75	6,162
2016	71	14	57	6,233
2017	78	18	60	6,311
2018	100	11	89	6,411
2019	124	38	86	6,535
2020	77	4	73	6,612
2021	104	8	96	6,716
2022	113	19	94	6,829
2023	85	10	75	6,914
2024	76	0	76	6,990
2025	71	10	61	7,061
2026	65	10	55	7,126

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

116 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (6,486 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 1,300 ft below ground: a faint lane spans the 10th to 90th percentile of where the permits naming that aquifer stopped, the solid band their screens, the tick the median. This is the permit file’s view of the ground — the aquifer is the name the driller wrote, the band is where those holes ended — not a geologic map, and a township is as fine as it gets. Monitoring holes are left out. 23 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.

T22S R59W
327

T23S R56W
308

T14S R61W
283 · 72% here

T13S R61W
271 · 79% here

T23S R55W
258

T22S R58W
248

T23S R52W
239

T24S R55W
228

T12S R60W
223 · 75% here

T15S R60W
210

T15S R61W
206 · 89% here

T13S R60W
205

T23S R57W
190

T12S R61W
180 · 92% here

T14S R60W
146

T22S R52W
126

T23S R54W
123

T21S R58W
119

T14S R58W
117

T14S R59W
106

T13S R59W
97

T23S R53W
86

T24S R56W
85

T22S R57W
84

unnamed alluvium Denver Arapahoe Laramie-Fox Hills 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
T22S R59W 6th PM	96%	alluvium	10	25 / 32 / 35	17 / 19 / 23	26 / 32 / 34
T22S R59W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	315	22 / 34 / 51	10 / 20 / 46	25 / 35 / 73
T23S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	297	25 / 38 / 71	14 / 21 / 36	26 / 38 / 61
T23S R56W 6th PM	100%	other named	8	554 / 700 / 779	515 / 624 / 696	554 / 698 / 779
T14S R61W 6th PM	72%	Arapahoe	34	134 / 340 / 490	39 / 100 / 290	118 / 312 / 520
T14S R61W 6th PM	72%	unnamed	95	80 / 360 / 606	53 / 300 / 508	100 / 475 / 630
T14S R61W 6th PM	72%	other named	12	464 / 584 / 695	286 / 395 / 518	464 / 584 / 695
T14S R61W 6th PM	72%	Laramie-Fox Hills	137	508 / 660 / 814	356 / 510 / 640	500 / 660 / 800
T13S R61W 6th PM	79%	alluvium	16	220 / 310 / 326	158 / 230 / 254	200 / 298 / 314
T13S R61W 6th PM	79%	Denver	23	226 / 320 / 553	102 / 190 / 300	237 / 342 / 568
T13S R61W 6th PM	79%	unnamed	79	118 / 325 / 669	93 / 196 / 421	200 / 418 / 689
T13S R61W 6th PM	79%	Arapahoe	138	440 / 575 / 724	120 / 242 / 451	440 / 570 / 722
T13S R61W 6th PM	79%	Laramie-Fox Hills	12	891 / 1,040 / 1,223	710 / 850 / 960	890 / 1,040 / 1,160
T23S R55W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	245	27 / 38 / 517	15 / 20 / 406	30 / 39 / 692
T23S R55W 6th PM	99%	other named	10	567 / 656 / 728	—	—
T22S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	244	28 / 40 / 57	16 / 23 / 41	30 / 43 / 69
T23S R52W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	202	28 / 43 / 322	13 / 21 / 270	30 / 41 / 334
T23S R52W 6th PM	95%	other named	34	202 / 328 / 365	150 / 264 / 305	204 / 324 / 365
T24S R55W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	198	26 / 61 / 612	8 / 385 / 553	24 / 450 / 657
T24S R55W 6th PM	99%	other named	29	468 / 570 / 646	345 / 460 / 590	462 / 570 / 645
T12S R60W 6th PM	75%	unnamed	110	100 / 254 / 460	74 / 155 / 286	134 / 300 / 500
T12S R60W 6th PM	75%	Arapahoe	105	222 / 415 / 543	120 / 190 / 324	254 / 418 / 560
T15S R60W 6th PM	98%	Laramie-Fox Hills	8	154 / 210 / 300	56 / 100 / 124	163 / 220 / 300
T15S R60W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	147	121 / 306 / 500	74 / 140 / 225	204 / 340 / 500
T15S R60W 6th PM	98%	other named	45	300 / 360 / 500	80 / 160 / 253	292 / 355 / 476
T15S R61W 6th PM	89%	unnamed	115	145 / 361 / 576	100 / 235 / 332	259 / 400 / 582
T15S R61W 6th PM	89%	Laramie-Fox Hills	62	320 / 410 / 540	125 / 255 / 380	294 / 400 / 538
T15S R61W 6th PM	89%	other named	27	472 / 580 / 620	232 / 320 / 376	500 / 600 / 620
T13S R60W 6th PM	95%	alluvium	8	89 / 118 / 180	—	—
T13S R60W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	117	98 / 140 / 396	60 / 97 / 200	106 / 160 / 450
T13S R60W 6th PM	95%	Arapahoe	39	140 / 300 / 440	42 / 140 / 214	139 / 300 / 447
T13S R60W 6th PM	95%	Laramie-Fox Hills	39	355 / 553 / 792	166 / 401 / 649	362 / 556 / 816
T23S R57W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	183	27 / 40 / 73	12 / 26 / 854	30 / 46 / 940
T23S R57W 6th PM	99%	other named	5	955 / 955 / 973	—	—
T12S R61W 6th PM	92%	unnamed	78	116 / 364 / 650	104 / 256 / 437	132 / 420 / 677
T12S R61W 6th PM	92%	Denver	40	240 / 442 / 642	151 / 236 / 380	240 / 438 / 646
T12S R61W 6th PM	92%	Arapahoe	56	490 / 683 / 942	260 / 502 / 719	500 / 708 / 960
T14S R60W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	66	60 / 176 / 468	59 / 157 / 402	159 / 252 / 533
T14S R60W 6th PM	95%	other named	12	360 / 418 / 460	176 / 220 / 321	306 / 458 / 466
T14S R60W 6th PM	95%	Laramie-Fox Hills	60	245 / 448 / 590	115 / 354 / 444	239 / 485 / 591
T22S R52W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	106	39 / 70 / 360	25 / 80 / 335	42 / 112 / 395
T22S R52W 6th PM	98%	other named	18	257 / 385 / 465	170 / 300 / 385	300 / 345 / 465
T23S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	120	33 / 43 / 58	13 / 23 / 37	27 / 40 / 64
T21S R58W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	119	25 / 34 / 74	18 / 32 / 57	35 / 56 / 78
T14S R58W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	115	32 / 100 / 140	13 / 70 / 92	40 / 102 / 145
T14S R59W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	96	110 / 136 / 350	59 / 100 / 260	116 / 143 / 432
T14S R59W 6th PM	99%	other named	6	350 / 499 / 510	—	—
T13S R59W 6th PM	99%	unnamed	84	56 / 100 / 214	32 / 55 / 103	72 / 116 / 254
T13S R59W 6th PM	99%	Laramie-Fox Hills	10	139 / 242 / 340	57 / 100 / 123	129 / 235 / 262
T23S R53W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	72	24 / 40 / 356	19 / 30 / 328	30 / 42 / 388
T23S R53W 6th PM	95%	other named	11	250 / 350 / 500	200 / 278 / 406	248 / 338 / 472
T24S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	78	30 / 42 / 600	19 / 28 / 488	31 / 52 / 622
T24S R56W 6th PM	100%	other named	7	596 / 610 / 708	479 / 520 / 547	595 / 610 / 712
T22S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	81	27 / 40 / 60	16 / 22 / 46	29 / 43 / 59
T15S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	66	44 / 180 / 300	25 / 105 / 160	50 / 250 / 300
T15S R59W 6th PM	100%	other named	16	190 / 310 / 350	46 / 130 / 158	179 / 310 / 354
T17S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	72	24 / 36 / 55	14 / 20 / 34	28 / 50 / 60
T22S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	70	30 / 45 / 159	18 / 24 / 34	29 / 44 / 60
T22S R53W 6th PM	97%	unnamed	51	25 / 42 / 372	13 / 20 / 308	26 / 42 / 392
T22S R53W 6th PM	97%	other named	17	308 / 405 / 609	252 / 320 / 440	314 / 405 / 517
T16S R60W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	60	80 / 228 / 455	30 / 175 / 244	77 / 225 / 455
T15S R55W 6th PM	91%	unnamed	54	39 / 49 / 84	20 / 25 / 40	40 / 45 / 69
T24S R52W 6th PM	69%	unnamed	32	32 / 376 / 415	196 / 315 / 355	315 / 380 / 415
T24S R52W 6th PM	69%	other named	21	337 / 385 / 415	213 / 325 / 355	339 / 385 / 431
T16S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	52	113 / 155 / 191	82 / 120 / 141	112 / 150 / 201
T21S R59W 6th PM	78%	unnamed	51	51 / 90 / 115	31 / 68 / 92	58 / 104 / 115
T15S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	46	20 / 50 / 72	12 / 33 / 51	40 / 57 / 73
T19S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	46	22 / 29 / 32	11 / 24 / 24	26 / 30 / 37
T22S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	39	25 / 41 / 722	17 / 24 / 727	28 / 40 / 814
T22S R55W 6th PM	100%	other named	5	677 / 702 / 937	557 / 575 / 839	676 / 700 / 936
T21S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	43	27 / 31 / 43	10 / 11 / 13	30 / 31 / 34
T18S R60W 6th PM	56%	unnamed	41	45 / 67 / 137	21 / 39 / 117	51 / 74 / 139
T26S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	33	30 / 90 / 392	34 / 123 / 330	52 / 203 / 605
T17S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	33	23 / 43 / 60	11 / 28 / 34	49 / 50 / 60
T21S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	33	25 / 40 / 75	15 / 20 / 44	28 / 55 / 84
T24S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	29	35 / 55 / 865	—	—
T14S R57W 6th PM	69%	unnamed	30	40 / 60 / 101	10 / 24 / 60	40 / 50 / 87
T19S R59W 6th PM	98%	unnamed	31	75 / 107 / 130	44 / 70 / 89	76 / 110 / 130
T15S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	30	33 / 48 / 121	20 / 26 / 108	34 / 50 / 130
T15S R58W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	28	14 / 56 / 93	12 / 40 / 80	40 / 80 / 100
T16S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	29	16 / 43 / 66	—	—
T18S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	29	21 / 32 / 89	8 / 17 / 22	25 / 30 / 30
T20S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	28	24 / 33 / 45	12 / 17 / 30	32 / 36 / 47
T24S R54W 6th PM	97%	unnamed	17	407 / 550 / 626	—	—
T24S R54W 6th PM	97%	other named	11	470 / 580 / 625	332 / 450 / 585	498 / 581 / 625
T17S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	26	75 / 105 / 148	55 / 90 / 109	86 / 120 / 140
T16S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	24	46 / 130 / 148	65 / 100 / 118	80 / 135 / 160
T16S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	26	34 / 84 / 125	42 / 60 / 73	79 / 88 / 96
T18S R53W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	26	24 / 29 / 32	—	—
T18S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	26	100 / 124 / 142	68 / 85 / 115	106 / 128 / 148
T20S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	26	50 / 80 / 102	32 / 44 / 70	50 / 74 / 120
T17S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	21	30 / 60 / 120	18 / 50 / 80	38 / 80 / 112
T16S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	22	30 / 38 / 99	13 / 20 / 65	32 / 36 / 84
T28S R59W 6th PM	96%	unnamed	20	141 / 332 / 564	113 / 250 / 492	132 / 310 / 568
T19S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	19	46 / 83 / 101	19 / 40 / 69	58 / 88 / 100
T28S R63W 6th PM	97%	unnamed	20	20 / 95 / 353	87 / 290 / 399	119 / 330 / 661
T16S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	18	28 / 42 / 53	18 / 20 / 23	30 / 42 / 48
T17S R60W 6th PM	92%	unnamed	18	130 / 170 / 213	80 / 140 / 162	122 / 165 / 198
T17S R54W 6th PM	94%	unnamed	17	30 / 40 / 65	—	—
T28S R60W 6th PM	97%	unnamed	15	132 / 350 / 806	165 / 332 / 545	260 / 378 / 716
T18S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	16	26 / 33 / 55	15 / 19 / 33	30 / 34 / 51
T19S R53W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	14	25 / 31 / 54	15 / 19 / 20	26 / 28 / 28
T19S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	15	14 / 27 / 77	—	—
T25S R55W 6th PM	95%	unnamed	14	14 / 238 / 567	—	—
T25S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	51 / 100 / 656	—	—
T26S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	15	45 / 465 / 628	—	—
T26S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	12	85 / 450 / 570	—	—
T27S R60W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	114 / 310 / 489	8 / 205 / 341	89 / 360 / 543
T28S R64W 6th PM	55%	unnamed	14	27 / 158 / 463	27 / 226 / 289	68 / 310 / 575
T17S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	37 / 50 / 88	—	—
T26S R61W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	133 / 260 / 370	—	—
T18S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	31 / 35 / 45	10 / 15 / 18	35 / 38 / 41
T18S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	41 / 63 / 140	—	—
T27S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	13	344 / 490 / 624	—	—
T27S R61W 6th PM	86%	unnamed	13	61 / 240 / 295	42 / 80 / 176	62 / 240 / 290
T27S R62W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	12	123 / 242 / 361	—	—
T29S R60W 6th PM	73%	other named	5	157 / 243 / 512	—	—
T29S R60W 6th PM	73%	unnamed	8	88 / 308 / 442	—	—
T23S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	12	19 / 29 / 1,277	—	—
T27S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	10	49 / 168 / 501	—	—
T25S R61W 6th PM	94%	unnamed	9	49 / 410 / 1,146	—	—
T26S R62W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	11	132 / 213 / 293	136 / 170 / 198	164 / 210 / 250
T27S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	11	50 / 250 / 500	—	—
T28S R62W 6th PM	65%	unnamed	10	60 / 236 / 306	—	—
T25S R57W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	100 / 636 / 830	—	—
T26S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	10	67 / 250 / 489	—	—
T26S R60W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	10	27 / 100 / 638	—	—
T19S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	9	24 / 32 / 45	14 / 20 / 29	23 / 30 / 47
T21S R55W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	22 / 32 / 112	—	—
T22S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	9	39 / 60 / 1,080	—	—
T24S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	25 / 50 / 702	—	—
T24S R61W 6th PM	76%	unnamed	9	38 / 58 / 916	—	—
T25S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	9	359 / 430 / 502	—	—
T26S R53W 6th PM	86%	unnamed	9	77 / 200 / 328	—	—
T18S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	26 / 30 / 48	—	—
T26S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	57 / 637 / 840	—	—
T27S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	8	28 / 36 / 230	—	—
T27S R56W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	6	94 / 265 / 562	—	—
T27S R63W 6th PM	90%	unnamed	8	73 / 119 / 226	50 / 84 / 214	70 / 119 / 254
T28S R58W 6th PM	50%	unnamed	8	124 / 238 / 404	—	—
T17S R52W 6th PM	57%	unnamed	7	71 / 85 / 90	54 / 65 / 68	69 / 85 / 88
T23S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	7	31 / 40 / 646	—	—
T17S R53W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	6	30 / 30 / 35	—	—
T20S R54W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	6	28 / 40 / 46	—	—
T24S R53W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	6	324 / 358 / 375	—	—
T25S R60W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	117 / 800 / 986	—	—
T27S R59W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	6	116 / 340 / 608	—	—
T20S R51W 6th PM	83%	unnamed	5	82 / 107 / 113	—	—
T20S R53W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	32 / 37 / 43	—	—
T20S R58W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	18 / 47 / 53	—	—
T21S R52W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	98 / 200 / 320	—	—
T25S R62W 6th PM	100%	unnamed	5	85 / 150 / 192	—	—

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 ↗

22 reservoir(s) with 10,582 storage measurement(s), 1950–2024.

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)
▸ LAKE MEREDITH (1703525)	11,386	2021-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ FORT LYON STORAGE CANAL (1700648)	10,758	2007-10-26	—	—	dossier →
▸ ADOBE CREEK RESERVOIR (1703546)	9,807	2021-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE HENRY (1703524)	1,642	2022-10-28	—	—	dossier →
▸ BROWN RESERVOIR (1703562)	500	2014-08-10	—	—	dossier →
▸ WINDMILL LAKE RESERVOIR (1703595)	110	2017-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ RED TOP RESERVOIR (1703564)	78	2014-08-10	—	—	dossier →
▸ BOX SPRINGS RES NO 3 (1703573)	71	2014-10-30	—	—	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 55th-driest week 39 in 115 years of record at ARKANSAS RIVER AT LA JUNTA, CO (as of 2026-09-21; this week’s flow sits at the 48th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Las Animas County is 8% in D3 extreme drought (2026-10-06). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 97% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.

Every year since 1912, week by week

Each thin row is a year at ARKANSAS RIVER AT LA JUNTA, 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 13.7 percentile points; next closest 2012 (16.6), 2018 (17.9)). 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 Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Las Animas, Lincoln, Otero, Otero, Pueblo 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 2005 — 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 (838 calls touching this district) against the district’s rights index. Scoping is deliberately coarse — a call’s own district, or districts named in its comments — and this is administration’s RESPONSE, not a per-structure verdict (each dossier’s curtailment card does that, with stream miles). A deepening call can also reflect growing demand, not only shrinking supply.

This basin’s droughts, by its own record

Drought	Span	Weeks	Trough percentile	Flows recovered	Water table back
the 2020-22 drought	2021-11-15 → 2022-04-25	23	26th (2022-02-07)	64 weeks	1 yr (25 wells, 11 still below)
the 2020-22 drought	2020-09-28 → 2021-04-19	29	21st (2020-12-21)	3 weeks	not yet (15 of 25 wells still below)
the 2018 drought	2018-08-27 → 2019-03-18	29	17th (2018-10-08)	1 week	not yet (13 of 25 wells still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2013-05-20 → 2013-11-04	24	24th (2013-07-29)	0 weeks	2 yr (84 wells, 7 still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2012-08-06 → 2013-03-04	30	17th (2012-11-05)	35 weeks	4 yr (84 wells, 18 still below)
the 2002 drought	2002-06-24 → 2003-04-21	43	4th (2002-09-23)	52 weeks	not yet (36 of 66 wells still below)
the 1977 drought	1977-07-11 → 1979-05-14	96	14th (1977-10-31)	6 weeks	2 yr (154 wells, 27 still below)
the 1977 drought	1976-01-26 → 1976-10-04	36	12th (1976-05-17)	3 weeks	4 yr (204 wells, 60 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1974-08-05 → 1975-08-25	55	14th (1974-12-23)	12 weeks	6 yr (217 wells, 75 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1972-12-11 → 1973-09-10	39	14th (1973-03-12)	3 weeks	4 yr (283 wells, 82 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1972-04-03 → 1972-10-23	29	21st (1972-05-15)	49 weeks	3 yr (287 wells, 79 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1969-03-10 → 1969-09-15	27	22nd (1969-04-28)	4 weeks	1 yr (248 wells, 29 still below)
unnamed dry spell	1967-01-16 → 1967-12-18	48	20th (1967-05-15)	38 weeks	1 yr (378 wells, 54 still below)
the 1963-64 drought	1964-02-03 → 1964-10-19	37	17th (1964-05-11)	37 weeks	1 yr (182 wells, 15 still below)

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 $289,232,309 in drought-caused claims across Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Las Animas, Lincoln, Otero, Pueblo counties — 39.4% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2013 ($43,072,721).

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 (1,873 rights across 115 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.43 — this basin tended to claim water in dry times, under scarcity pressure. 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 ↗

19 systems touch this district (19 community systems reporting 21,381 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); 4 of them carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record.

System	Serves	Source	Here
LA JUNTA CITY OF	8,320	Groundwater	100% of its area
ROCKY FORD CITY OF	4,443	Groundwater	100% of its area
LAS ANIMAS CITY OF 1 open health-based	2,139	Groundwater	100% of its area
ORDWAY TOWN OF	1,300	Groundwater	100% of its area
FOWLER TOWN OF	1,169	Groundwater under the influence of surface water	76% of its area
SWINK TOWN OF 1 open health-based	660	Groundwater	100% of its area
CROWLEY COUNTY WA	530	Groundwater	100% of its area
EUREKA WC	498	Groundwater	100% of its area

and 11 more; the full directory filters by district.

Instream-flow rights held by the state

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

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 1861-12-31 to 2022-09-21. 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. 20 abandonment screens and 19 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: 2077 across 1909 structure(s); 97 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.

A J ANDERSON DITCH (1700577) DWR↗ stopped 2025-10-19 (12+ days) — call at CHILILI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
1700540 DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-22 (25+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
A J ANDERSON DITCH (1700577) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-08 (13+ days) — call at HARDSCRABBLE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
HOLBROOK CANAL (1700554) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-07 (19+ days) — call at HARDSCRABBLE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
1700540 DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-21 (17+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
NINE MILE CANAL (1700604) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-05 (51+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
1700540 DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-17 (24+ days) — call at PULASKI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
DEADMAN GULCH DITCH NO 4 (1700580) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-13 (42+ days) — call at LUCERO DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
A J ANDERSON DITCH (1700577) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-22 (20+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
CANADY DITCH (1700587) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-06 (26+ days) — call at LUCERO DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
NINE MILE CANAL (1700604) DWR↗ stopped 2025-03-31 (37+ days) — call at SPANISH PEAKS DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
1700540 DWR↗ stopped 2025-03-13 (14+ days) — call at TITSWORTH 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
ADOBE CREEK FEEDER (1700674) DWR↗	1906-01-25	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HORSE CREEK SUPPLY DITCH (1700673) DWR↗	1900-08-15	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
FORT LYON STORAGE CANAL (1700648) DWR↗	1884-04-15	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HOLBROOK CANAL (1700554) DWR↗	1889-09-25	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
FORT LYON CANAL (1700553) DWR↗	1884-04-15	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
KICKINGBIRD CANAL (1700555) DWR↗	1896-08-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
1700540 DWR↗	1881-03-10	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
1700542 DWR↗	1861-12-31	95.1% / 31.9%	0.0% / 0.0%
OTERO CANAL (1700557) DWR↗	1890-03-03	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
BOX SPRINGS CANAL NO 1 (1700586) DWR↗	1899-10-24	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
CATLIN CANAL (1700552) DWR↗	1875-04-10	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HORSE CREEK & BLACK DRAW DITCH (1700592) DWR↗	1899-06-06	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (20 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 ~2017 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

CLUTE SPRING DITCH (1700627) DWR↗ (1948-07-31, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1980 — 45 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
FOULK DITCH & IRRIG SYS (1700564) DWR↗ (1954-01-01, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1982 — 43 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
1700575 DWR↗ (1948-12-02, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1983 — 42 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
CROWLEY COUNTY WELL NO 3 (1706019) DWR↗ (1981-08-31, 0.6 cfs decreed): last active 1983 — 42 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
ADOBE CREEK FEEDER (1700674) DWR↗ (1906-01-25, 17262.0 cfs decreed): last active 2007 — 18 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
MUSTANG RESERVOIR CANAL (1700608) DWR↗ (1902-03-17, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 2009 — 16 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
MCCABE DITCH NO 1 (1700660) DWR↗ (1905-09-09, 10.0 cfs decreed): last active 2010 — 15 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
MCCABE DITCH NO 2 (1700688) DWR↗ (1905-09-09, 10.0 cfs decreed): last active 2010 — 15 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
DOUGLAS - GORDON RES (1703912) DWR↗ (1919-04-16, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 2010 — 15 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
DAWN POND (1703508) DWR↗ (1964-10-22, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 2011 — 14 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~2017) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse

Compliance screens (19 advisory flags)

Screened 59 of 1909 structures with rights (71 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.

CROOKED ARROYA DITCH (1700578) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 1710.0 cfs (max 1710.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 27.2 cfs across 12241 recorded day(s).
BEST DITCH HEADGATE 1 (1700605) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 301.3 cfs (max 325.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 50.0 cfs across 196 recorded day(s).
BEER DITCH (1700561) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 230.0 cfs (max 230.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 100.0 cfs across 166 recorded day(s).
HORSE CREEK & BLACK DRAW DITCH (1700592) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 225.0 cfs (max 255.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 190.5 cfs across 180 recorded day(s).
MUSTANG RESERVOIR CANAL (1700608) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 151.2 cfs (max 152.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 218 recorded day(s).
LAS ANIMAS CONSOLIDATED (1700556) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 131.3 cfs (max 190.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 94.6 cfs across 70259 recorded day(s).
1700541 DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 131.0 cfs (max 442.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 129.4 cfs across 74187 recorded day(s).
ROCKY FORD DITCH (1700558) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 120.0 cfs (max 631.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 116.2 cfs across 81054 recorded day(s).
MCCABE DITCH NO 1 (1700660) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 90.0 cfs (max 90.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 10.0 cfs across 60 recorded day(s).
CROWLEY COUNTY WELL NO 3 (1706019) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 37.2 cfs (max 37.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.6 cfs across 46 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Conditional?
ADOBE CREEK FEEDER (1700674) DWR↗	1906-01-25	2	17262.0	—
HORSE CREEK SUPPLY DITCH (1700673) DWR↗	1900-08-15	3	12000.0	—
FORT LYON STORAGE CANAL (1700648) DWR↗	1884-04-15	7	3986.0	—
HOLBROOK CANAL (1700554) DWR↗	1889-09-25	8	2800.0	—
FORT LYON CANAL (1700553) DWR↗	1884-04-15	8	2438.2	—
KICKINGBIRD CANAL (1700555) DWR↗	1896-08-01	1	1150.0	—
1700540 DWR↗	1881-03-10	9	756.3	—
1700542 DWR↗	1861-12-31	8	501.6	—
OTERO CANAL (1700557) DWR↗	1890-03-03	2	457.9	—
BOX SPRINGS CANAL NO 1 (1700586) DWR↗	1899-10-24	3	414.5	—
CATLIN CANAL (1700552) DWR↗	1875-04-10	3	345.0	—
HORSE CREEK & BLACK DRAW DITCH (1700592) DWR↗	1899-06-06	2	190.5	—
1700541 DWR↗	1867-09-21	2	129.4	—
ROCKY FORD DITCH (1700558) DWR↗	1874-05-15	3	116.2	—
BEER DITCH (1700561) DWR↗	1903-03-15	1	100.0	—

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
CPW ROCKY FORD STATE WILDLIFE AREA	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2026-11-30	1707855	plan file
BIG R FARM - LAWMA	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2027-03-31	1707807	plan file
LAWMA - FLCC	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2027-03-31	1707704	plan file
LAWMA CSU NEW LEASE WATER TO JMP/MPA	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-06-30	6707847	plan file
ROCKY FORD, CITY OF - ROCKY FORD DITCH AND CAITLIN CANAL (06CW49)	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2027-06-30	1707011	plan file
DEEP CUT (ROCKY FORD EAST PIT - 22 WEST PARCEL)	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1707867	plan file
NORTH RIVER PIT	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	1707803	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 ↗

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

Site	Temp °C	Cond µS/cm	As of
ARKANSAS RIVER AT CATLIN DAM, NEAR FOWLER, CO.	18.0	1190	2026-10-12 08:15
ARKANSAS RIVER AT LAS ANIMAS, CO.	16.4	4	2026-10-12 08:45
ARKANSAS RIVER NEAR ROCKY FORD, CO. ↗	18.1	1280	2026-10-12 08:15

Where water has been sampled

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

The portal lists 3,992 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith 11020005, 31% of the district; Horse 11020008, 30% of the district; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir 11020009, 17% of the district; Apishapa 11020007, 13% of the district; Purgatoire 11020010, 8% of the district), of which 155 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 (80), Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservation District (38), Colorado River Watch (22). Most-sampled groups: Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Nutrient, Inorganics, Minor, 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 ↗

19 community systems touch this district. 4 carry an open health-based violation on EPA's record; 1 is listed by EPA as serious violator. EPA sampled 3 of them for PFAS in 2023–25; 1 had PFOA or PFOS at or above the 2024 limit.

System	Serves	EPA record	PFAS (UCMR 5)	Lead, latest 90th pct
MANZANOLA TOWN OF	497	2 open health-based	not sampled	0.0 mg/L
LAS ANIMAS CITY OF	2,139	1 open health-based	not sampled	0.0 mg/L
SWINK TOWN OF	660	1 open health-based	not sampled	0.002 mg/L
NORTH HOLBROOK WC	58	1 open health-based	none detected	0.0 mg/L
ROCKY FORD CITY OF	4,443	clean, last 12 quarters	PFOS at or over the limit	0.0 mg/L
LA JUNTA CITY OF	8,320	clean, last 12 quarters	none detected	0.001 mg/L
ORDWAY TOWN OF	1,300	2 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0 mg/L
FOWLER TOWN OF	1,169	9 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0 mg/L
CROWLEY COUNTY WA	530	2 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.001 mg/L
EUREKA WC	498	12 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0 mg/L

and 9 more; the full directory filters by district.

EPA's record carries violations and lead/copper percentiles; nitrate and disinfection by-product results are not in it. UCMR 5 samples are monitoring, not compliance, and the 2024 PFOA/PFOS limits equal its reporting limit, so any detection of those two is at or above them.

Impaired waters

Source Register of another agency · verify at EPA ATTAINS ↗

The state's 303(d) impaired-waters list has not been joined to this basin's own watershed boundary yet, so nothing is shown rather than a guess; the basins with a join carry the full list here. Why the join is geometry, not a name match.

Call cascade

If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.

What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.

Pick a calling right

Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.

Or enter an administration number directly

Administration number

DWR administration numbers encode appropriation and adjudication dates; lower is more senior.

This week's diagnostic

Loading…

System status

Loading…

Active river calls

Loading…

Hydrographs vs. historical envelope

Loading…

Anomaly flags

Loading…

Topology cross-check: 8 parent disagreements, 4 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 24 streams, 16 agree. Know this water? Tell us →

Stream	This site routes it to	DWR routes it to
Pond Creek	the mainstem	Dead Horse Creek
Adobe Creek	the mainstem	Horse Creek
Little Horse Creek	the mainstem	Horse Creek
Cramer Creek	the mainstem	Breckenridge Creek
Steels Fork	the mainstem	Horse Creek
Pond Creek	the mainstem	Dead Horse Creek
Bob Creek	the mainstem	no parent named
Dry Creek	the mainstem	Timpas Creek

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

Horse Creek (129 mi) · Thompson Arroyo (9 mi) · Vandiver Arroyo (8 mi) · Robinson Arroyo (6 mi)

Something wrong on this page? Tell us →

Arkansas: Fowler to Las Animas

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 1912, 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 (20 screens)

Compliance screens (19 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?