Purgatoire River

Division 2 · Water District 19

Auto-mapped

Purgatoire River on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 19 · clicktap anything for its record

Snowpack — no snow on the ground at 1 SNOTEL site — normal for the date; the snow year begins in October and typically peaks around April 1. Runoff outlook — Trinidad Lake Inflow: even odds of at least 5 kAF over 06-01 to 09-30 — 20% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Full snow & runoff picture — charts, forecast history and how the forecasts have verified →

Sites, exceedance bands and sources

SNOTEL site	Elev (ft)	SWE (in)	Median (in)	% of median	Typical peak
Whiskey Ck	10260	0.0	0.0	—	April 1 (11.1 in)

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

90%	70%	50%	30%	10%	Normal
0	2	5	9	14	26

Snow-water equivalent and medians (1991–2020) from NRCS SNOTEL; seasonal volume forecasts from the NRCS National Water and Climate Center. Sites and forecast points are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — snowpack that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district. Toggle the Snow chip on the map above to see the sites.

Topology cross-check: 3 parent disagreements, 17 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 15 streams, 12 agree. Know this water? Tell us →

Stream	This site routes it to	DWR routes it to
Whiskey Creek	the mainstem	North Fork Purgatoire River
San Isidro Creek	the mainstem	San Francisco Creek
Chicorica Creek	the mainstem	nan

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

Smith Canyon Creek (60 mi) · Chacuaco Creek (59 mi) · Chicosa Arroyo (29 mi) · Luning Arroyo (28 mi) · Trementina Creek (AKA Alkalai Arroyo) (27 mi) · Lockwood Arroyo (24 mi) · Sarcillo Canyon (17 mi) · Frijole Creek (16 mi)

Full diagnostic snapshot pending — this district's weekly-style report (system status, active calls, hydrographs, anomaly flags) is produced by the nightly rotation and appears here after its first run. The tabs above are live now.

Reconstruct conditions as of

Evolution of the network

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 17 ranked gages are running at a median 4% of their own long-term norm for this window — 17 below a typical year, 0 at or above. Driest relative to its record: CHILILI DITCH, ranking 1st lowest of 19 years.

How this comparison is made

Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-07-06, compared with the same window in every year of its own record — so a gage is only ever measured against itself, and gages with no record in the window are counted out rather than guessed.

Gage flow trend & changepoints

What counts as a trend here

Computed 2026-08-30 19:39 from 35 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 35 gages with enough record, 5 are trending down and 2 up, and 5 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Van Bremer Arroyo near Model, its annual mean flow changing -0.31 cfs per decade (-40.2% of its median annual flow) over 43 years (p=0.0026). The other 27 show no clear signal either way.

What drought has cost here

Since 1995, federal crop insurance has paid $686,555 in drought-caused claims across Las Animas county — 2.0% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2013 ($148,832).

USDA crop-insurance indemnities where the recorded cause of loss is drought, summed over the counties this district's gages sit in. Counties overlap water districts imperfectly, and insured-crop claims are a floor on drought damage, not a total. Source: USDA RMA cause-of-loss files.

Gage	Trend	Change / decade cfs · % of median annual flow	Significance	Years	Changepoint
▸ Van Bremer Arroyo near Model VANMODCO	↓ decreasing	-0.31 cfs -40.2%	p=0.003	43	~1988
▸ Purgatoire River at Trinidad PURTRICO	↓ decreasing	-2.68 cfs -3.7%	p=0.006	109	~1949
▸ Purgatoire River at Rock Crossing near Timpas PURRCKCO	↓ decreasing	-12.06 cfs -24.7%	p=0.010	25	~1999
▸ Luning Arroyo near Model LUARMOCO	↑ increasing	+0.90 cfs +41.9%	p=0.012	41	~1983
▸ Long Canyon Creek near Madrid LONMADCO	↑ increasing	+3.45 cfs +85.7%	p=0.023	17	—
▸ Model Canal MODCANCO	↓ decreasing	-7.33 cfs -58.5%	p=0.034	18	—
▸ Purgatoire River near Thatcher PURTHACO	↓ decreasing	-4.33 cfs -10.9%	p=0.048	59	—
▸ Hoehne Ditch HOEDITCO	no clear trend	-0.12 cfs -1.7%	p=0.112	18	~2016

27 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. 18 gage(s) and 103 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1953. 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	2	0
1910s	1	6
1920s	2	5
1930s	1	13
1940s	1	25
1950s	4	97
1960s	5	107
1970s	6	79
1980s	13	94
1990s	10	84
2000s	13	64
2010s	19	120
2020s	18	114

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 2% of 5821 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 (1955–2026)

Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1955 (1515 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.

JOHNS FLOOD DITCH: reach shifted from -30 cfs to +1 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 18 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
PURGATOIRE RIVER NEAR HOEHNE, CO.: reach shifted from -112 cfs to -32 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.009, 20 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
CHILILI DITCH: reach shifted from -22 cfs to -16 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.036, 19 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
PURGATOIRE RIVER AT TRINIDAD: reach shifted from +46 cfs to -2 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.000, 50 yr) [sedimentary plains/foothills: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 258 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 27 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 50-year window with full coverage (1977–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 55% 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 2026-07-06)

Which structures' data absorbed the most correction when the current mass-balance snapshot was reconciled -- see the Historical tab for the full picture on any date.

LONG & SUASO CONS DITCH (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
MADRID RESERVOIR (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
TRINIDAD WATER RES NO 3 (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
CARBON COAL & COKE CO (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
HORACE LONG DITCH (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
LAVE DITCH (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
SOPRIS PUMP & PIPELINE (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
MORLEY MINE WATER DEVELOPMENT (diversion): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
BERG SPRING NO 1 (return): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)
BERG SPRING NO 2 (return): +1.2 cfs (3% of that reach's correction)

Data provenance & quality

Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade D (2/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (imported 2026-08-19) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.

Check	State	What was measured
gage freshness	stale	newest gage reading is 55 day(s) old (target 7)
diversion record	stale	newest diversion record is 669 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	2% of schematic structures have data

Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 44,226 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 — 99.70% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 25 co-listed station(s) and 200,086 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.

35 gage(s) / 289,755 daily values (1896-10-01–2026-07-06); 277 structure(s) with diversion records; 735 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.

652 water-level measurements across 258 monitored well(s) — 140 alluvial, 0 bedrock — plus 1 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 8 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 2 declining, 2 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ SC03005818BBB	alluvial	-0.88	13 yr	0.0005
▸ SC02905815DAA	alluvial	-0.64	13 yr	0.0049

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.

CHILILI DITCH: 0 alluvial well(s) nearby. 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).

PURGATOIRE RIVER AT TRINIDAD: 0 alluvial well(s) nearby. 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).

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.

27 reservoir(s) with 2,689 storage measurement(s), 1950–2013. Basin storage as of 2012-10-19 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 9 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)
▸ TRINIDAD RESERVOIR (1903935)	14,200	2010-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ NORTH LAKE RESERVOIR (1903855)	3,658	2005-07-14	—	—	dossier →
▸ MONUMENT LAKE RESERVOIR (1903857)	1,552	2005-10-06	—	—	dossier →
▸ LAKE DOROTHY (1903941)	326	2006-04-18	—	—	dossier →
▸ RUSSELL RESERVOIR (1903856)	290	2005-09-08	—	—	dossier →
▸ GAGLIARDI (JOE/LD WARD) RESERVOIR (1903530)	185	2004-10-10	—	—	dossier →
▸ RUSSELL LAKE DITCH (1900551)	150	2002-10-15	—	—	dossier →
▸ SUENO RESERVOIR (1903940)	50	2006-09-07	—	—	dossier →

Snow-water equivalent, WY2026

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

SNOTEL site	Elev (ft)	SWE (in)	Median (in)	% of median	Typical peak
Whiskey Ck	10260	0.0	0.0	—	April 1 (11.1 in)

NRCS SNOTEL, daily. Sites are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — the snow that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district.

Two ways a snow year goes wrong (1981–2026)

A bad snow year here comes in two flavors (both called snow drought), and the river feels them differently. In 10 of the last 46 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 3 more, the snow came but left early — a near-normal peak melted out two weeks or more ahead of its usual date, sending the water down before the season needed it. This year was one of the dry ones: the pack peaked at 34% of median.

The snow never came: 1981, 1988, 2002, 2006, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2022, 2025, 2026. The snow left early: 1989, 2012, 2020.

Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1981). Each year is measured against each site’s own multi-decade median — not the 1991–2020 normal the chart above uses — so the 1980s grade against a fair baseline. Peak and melt-out need 85% of the season’s days on the record; thin years are dropped, not guessed. Derived from snow measurements alone — it cannot tell dry-from-warm causes apart, only what the snowpack did.

Runoff outlook — Trinidad Lake Inflow

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 5 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 20% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 14. Our own record at this gage shows 2 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 92 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →

90% chance of at least	70% chance of at least	50% chance of at least	30% chance of at least	10% chance of at least	Normal	Observed
0	2	5	9	14	26	2*

How good are these forecasts here? (1950–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 68 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 34%, with a low bias of 7%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 86% of the time (a calibrated forecast would say 80%).

Computed by this site: NRCS's archived April issues (their period as issued each year) against the observed volume in DWR’s published record; years with under 90% daily coverage are dropped, not summed. A grade of the forecast, never of the forecasters — these are hard rivers. How this point ranks among every graded Colorado forecast point →

What April snow has meant for this river (1981–2025)

Across 40 measured years, the season’s water has loosely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 89% of a normal season (a snow-to-runoff elasticity of 0.6). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 54% of a normal season, against 110% in typical years — the timing of the melt matters, not just its size.

Computed by this site: the district’s April 1 SWE (% of each SNOTEL site’s own-record median) against the observed April–July volume at this gage (% of its median season) — a fixed window every year, unlike the forecast grades above, which use each issue’s own period. The slope is fit so single wild years can’t steer it (Theil–Sen, log space); years missing 10% of their days are dropped.

Decreed rights on this network run from 1861-05-31 to 2021-12-31. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 4% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 88 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: 960 across 735 structure(s); 135 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.

HOEHNE DITCH (1900571) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-07 (8+ days) — call at GUILLEN DITCH curtailing 75% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
BURNS & DUNCAN DITCH (PUMP) (1900585) DWR↗ stopped 2024-09-18 (27+ days) — call at BURROUGHS DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
MARTINEZ & MEDINA DITCH (1900579) DWR↗ stopped 2024-09-10 (20+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
CHILILI DITCH (1900590) DWR↗ stopped 2024-09-05 (40+ days) — call at MODEL DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
BURNS & DUNCAN DITCH (PUMP) (1900585) DWR↗ stopped 2024-08-09 (6+ days) — call at CHILILI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
SANCHES-QUINTANA DITCH (1900503) DWR↗ stopped 2024-08-05 (56+ days) — call at CHILILI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
MARTINEZ & MEDINA DITCH (1900579) DWR↗ stopped 2024-08-05 (21+ days) — call at CHILILI DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
SALAS NORTH DITCH (1900559) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-31 (14+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
REYS MONTOYA DITCH (1900553) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-29 (72+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
SARCILLO DITCH (1900563) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-29 (63+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
TIJERAS DITCH (1900568) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-29 (63+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
BURNS & DUNCAN DITCH (1900586) DWR↗ stopped 2024-07-16 (28+ days) — call at HOEHNE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]

Right yield — how often could these rights actually divert?

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

Structure	Senior priority	Senior right: median / dry yr	Junior right: median / dry yr
TRINIDAD RESERVOIR (1903935) DWR↗	1861-05-31	97.7% / 50.5%	0.0% / 0.0%
MODEL DITCH (1900552) DWR↗	1862-03-20	96.7% / 30.8%	0.0% / 0.0%
PULASKI DITCH (1900660) DWR↗	1863-06-30	70.1% / 15.4%	0.0% / 0.0%
BACA IRRIGATING DITCH (1900783) DWR↗	1861-05-31	97.7% / 50.5%	0.0% / 0.0%
NORTH LAKE INLET (1900554) DWR↗	1861-05-31	97.7% / 50.5%	0.0% / 0.0%
SAN YSIDRO HIGHLINE (1900713) DWR↗	1908-05-31	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
EARL FLOOD DITCH (1900648) DWR↗	1912-08-08	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HOEHNE DITCH (1900571) DWR↗	1863-01-01	71.0% / 24.8%	41.1% / 1.9%
PURGATOIRE RIVER MIN FLOW (1903025) DWR↗	2009-01-27	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HALL & HOWARD DITCH (1900607) DWR↗	1892-01-01	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
S FK PURGATOIRE MIN FLOW (1903002) DWR↗	2009-01-27	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
MOCK DITCH NO 2 (1900823) DWR↗	1897-12-29	0.0% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (25 screens)

Absolute rights with 10+ years of no recorded diversions. Screens only — storage, alternate points, and plan operations can explain nonuse lawfully. And diversion REPORTING itself only reached its modern level ~1953 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

UPLAND DITCH (1900696) DWR↗ (1914-12-16, 8.0 cfs decreed): last active 1957 — 67 years idle
MIGUEL TRUJILLO DITCH (1900754) DWR↗ (1922-04-11, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1965 — 59 years idle
EARL FLOOD DITCH (1900648) DWR↗ (1912-08-08, 30.0 cfs decreed): last active 1966 — 58 years idle
BLACK HILLS RESERVOIR (1903782) DWR↗ (1977-09-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1966 — 58 years idle
BAKER RESERVOIR (1903784) DWR↗ (1916-05-08, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 54 years idle
BROWN RESERVOIR NO 1 (1903794) DWR↗ (1909-11-14, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 54 years idle
HART DITCH (1900617) DWR↗ (1905-06-30, 15.0 cfs decreed): last active 1978 — 46 years idle
DOHERTY DITCH (1900692) DWR↗ (1913-03-04, 15.0 cfs decreed): last active 1978 — 46 years idle
CANONCITA DITCH (1900627) DWR↗ (1902-03-07, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1983 — 41 years idle
PARSONS DITCH NO 1 (1900671) DWR↗ (1895-04-04, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1986 — 38 years idle

Compliance screens (88 advisory flags)

Screened 131 of 735 structures with rights (146 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.

JOHN FLOOD DITCH (1900572) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 46.0 cfs (max 224.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.2 cfs across 57136 recorded day(s).
HOEHNE DITCH (1900571) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.3 cfs (max 260.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 22.2 cfs across 55327 recorded day(s).
MAXWELL DITCH NO 20 (1900522) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 22.0 cfs (max 32.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.8 cfs across 12262 recorded day(s).
MAXWELL DITCH NO 2 (1900603) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 18.6 cfs (max 24.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.4 cfs across 3092 recorded day(s).
PIONEER DITCH NO 1 (1900653) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 15.0 cfs (max 40.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.8 cfs across 6602 recorded day(s).
JEANNIN DITCH (1900702) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 14.0 cfs (max 14.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 4.0 cfs across 5426 recorded day(s).
O'NEAL DITCH (1900682) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 13.0 cfs (max 16.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 8.5 cfs across 11030 recorded day(s).
ANTONIO LOPEZ DITCH (1900583) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 12.4 cfs (max 19.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 8.0 cfs across 22774 recorded day(s).
SALAS NORTH DITCH (1900559) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 12.0 cfs (max 33.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 8.8 cfs across 23575 recorded day(s).
MAXWELL DITCH NO 19 (1900523) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 10.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.6 cfs across 2066 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
TRINIDAD RESERVOIR (1903935) DWR↗	1861-05-31	21	729.9	92378	yes
MODEL DITCH (1900552) DWR↗	1862-03-20	9	293.8	0	—
PULASKI DITCH (1900660) DWR↗	1863-06-30	11	154.0	0	—
BACA IRRIGATING DITCH (1900783) DWR↗	1861-05-31	8	103.7	0	—
NORTH LAKE INLET (1900554) DWR↗	1861-05-31	6	65.8	0	—
SAN YSIDRO HIGHLINE (1900713) DWR↗	1908-05-31	1	56.0	0	—
EARL FLOOD DITCH (1900648) DWR↗	1912-08-08	1	30.0	0	—
HOEHNE DITCH (1900571) DWR↗	1863-01-01	3	22.2	0	—
PURGATOIRE RIVER MIN FLOW (1903025) DWR↗	2009-01-27	1	21.0	0	—
HALL & HOWARD DITCH (1900607) DWR↗	1892-01-01	1	19.9	0	—
S FK PURGATOIRE MIN FLOW (1903002) DWR↗	2009-01-27	1	18.0	0	—
MOCK DITCH NO 2 (1900823) DWR↗	1897-12-29	1	17.9	0	—
LEWELLING-MCCORMICK (1900575) DWR↗	1864-01-01	3	17.8	0	—
TRINCHERA DITCH (1900726) DWR↗	1866-02-28	1	16.8	0	—
HART DITCH (1900617) DWR↗	1905-06-30	1	15.0	0	—

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

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

6 applications in the 2026-07 resume for this basin's division — new rights, changes, augmentation plans — from the water clerk's statutory monthly notice (C.R.S. 37-92-302), the earliest public signal of a new claim. Filings are division-wide, not district-filtered: check the county column. Full resume PDF at the Judicial Branch →

Anyone affected may file a statement of opposition until 2026-09-30 (30 days left). C.R.S. 37-92-302(3): due by the last day of the second month following the filing month — computed, not legal advice; confirm with the water clerk.

All 6 filings, with excerpts

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

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
BAR NI RANCH SWSP	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2026-08-31	1907805	plan file

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

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

Pick a calling right

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

Or enter an administration number directly

Administration number

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