Bootstrap review report — d3_wd20_rio_grande
Generated 2026-08-13 22:31 UTC for Division 3 / Water District 20.
This is a review checklist, not a finished config. Everything below is a suggestion from live DWR data — confirm or correct each section in config.yaml before running this basin for real.
1. Stream-name patterns
Assumed mainstem pattern: RIO GRANDE (highest-count waterSource value). Candidates below by structure count — decide which are real tributaries worth their own centerline vs. noise, and add them to longitudinal.tributary_stream_patterns in priority order (more-specific names, e.g. "WEST FORK X", must precede substrings of themselves, e.g. "X").
| waterSource | structure count |
|---|---|
| RIO GRANDE (assumed mainstem) | 156 |
| PINOS CREEK | 46 |
| ROCK CREEK | 31 |
| RATON CREEK | 18 |
| SAN FRANCISCO CREEK | 16 |
| NORTH CLEAR CREEK | 12 |
| WILLOW CREEK | 11 |
| EMBARGO CREEK | 10 |
| SOUTH CLEAR CREEK | 9 |
| PASS CREEK | 9 |
| SPRING CREEK | 8 |
| BELLOWS CREEK | 6 |
| CROOKED CREEK | 6 |
| TROUT CREEK | 6 |
| SOUTH FORK RIO GRANDE | 6 |
| MINERS CREEK | 5 |
| ELK CREEK | 5 |
| PARMA DRAIN | 5 |
| GOOSE CREEK | 5 |
| UNDEFINED | 5 |
| AGUA RAMON CREEK | 4 |
| WOLF CREEK | 4 |
| TRANSBASIN WATER | 4 |
| CAT CREEK | 4 |
| SCHRADER CREEK | 3 |
| PIERCE CREEK | 3 |
| SHAW CREEK | 3 |
| BEAVER CREEK | 3 |
| UNCONFINED SAN LUIS VALLEY | 3 |
| MILL CREEK | 3 |
2. Diversion / return classification
Auto-classified from structureType + name patterns: 360 diversions, 3 returns, 3806 unclassified (neither pattern matched — these render as neither on the schematic unless added to return_flow_wdids/force_diversion_wdids or a type is added to the diversion/return type lists).
This layer needs the least manual work — it's the same heuristic the engine uses at runtime. Spot-check a sample rather than reviewing every row; if you have a water-year accounting spreadsheet for this basin, cross-reference it against the 'other' bucket specifically (that's where a real augmentation return with an unusual DWR structureType will hide).
2b. Cross-checked against decreed water rights (CDSS)
9 structure(s) have a decreed water right (CDSS waterrights/netamount) that disagrees with the structureType/name-pattern classification above. Same-agency evidence (DWR/HydroBase), not independent of DWR the way the NLDI topology check is — worth a glance, not an automatic correction.
| wdid | structure | currently | decreed uses suggest | decreed uses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002029 | OFF RANCHES RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002039 | GRUBB DITCH BYPASS | other | return | Augmentation |
| 2002055 | KIRKPATRICK (PRAIRIE D) RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002056 | KIRKPATRICK (SLV CANAL) RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002058 | CURTIS/SEGER AUG PLAN RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002066 | SLANE AUG PLAN RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002077 | MONTE VISTA PCA AUG PLAN RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002081 | ENSZ AUG PLAN RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
| 2002082 | J COOLEY AUG PLAN RECHARGE PIT | other | return | Recharge |
3. Suspected nested tributaries
Still need a human decision — these tributary pairs are comparably close to EACH OTHER as to the mainstem — one may actually join the other rather than the mainstem directly (like Leavenworth Creek -> South Clear Creek in the Clear Creek basin). NLDI couldn't resolve these (no nearby flowline, or ambiguous/no downstream overlap within range) — if you know the real topology, set it in longitudinal.tributary_parent_overrides.
| tributary | possible parent | dist to possible parent (mi) | dist to mainstem (mi) | NLDI result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCHRADER CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.46 | 3.6 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.46086+37.631732%29 |
| MINERS CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.66 | 1.28 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.95034+37.827668%29 |
| NORTH CLEAR CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.98 | 0.74 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-107.112475+37.768872%29 |
| SPRING CREEK | PARMA DRAIN | 0.55 | 3.0 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.083486+37.504687%29 |
| CROOKED CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.3 | 0.6 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-107.131493+37.785183%29 |
| PARMA DRAIN | ROCK CREEK | 0.59 | 2.0 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.057599+37.516675%29 |
| GOOSE CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.96 | 4.13 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.835784+37.724113%29 |
| SOUTH CLEAR CREEK | CROOKED CREEK | 2.08 | 4.23 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-107.187666+37.824434%29 |
| PIERCE CREEK | GOOSE CREEK | 1.75 | 2.59 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.831879+37.749336%29 |
| RATON CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.22 | 5.41 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.2704+37.552216%29 |
| TROUT CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.0 | 0.17 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.679071+37.65372%29 |
| WOLF CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.53 | 0.84 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.514105+37.656566%29 |
| SHAW CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 0.92 | 0.73 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.550075+37.678946%29 |
| BEAVER CREEK | MILL CREEK | 1.74 | 2.42 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.666484+37.596174%29 |
| PASS CREEK | SOUTH FORK RIO GRANDE | 0.45 | 9.53 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.791704+37.48431%29 |
| CAT CREEK | SPRING CREEK | 5.15 | 7.21 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.169416+37.399236%29 |
| MILL CREEK | SOUTH FORK RIO GRANDE | 0.0 | 0.8 | NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.671772+37.625444%29 |
4. Gage placement risk
5 gage(s) would currently fail placement (> 2.5mi from the nearest centerline anchor — same failure mode as the Clear Creek at Derby bug). Options: raise the cutoff (check it doesn't sweep in an unrelated stream first — see the Little Dry Creek case), or add a manual override.
| gage | name | nearest stream | distance (mi) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007047A | J. COOLEY AUG PL | MAINSTEM | 4.88 |
| 2003533A | BIG RUBY RES OUTFLOW | MAINSTEM | 4.22 |
| PRWDITCO | PINE RIVER WEMINUCHE PASS DITCH AT WEMINUCHE PASS | MAINSTEM | 4.02 |
| WEMDITCO | WEMINUCHE PASS DITCH AT WEMINUCHE PASS | MAINSTEM | 3.87 |
| CBPALACO | CLOSED BASIN PROJECT CANAL NEAR ALAMOSA | MAINSTEM | 3.43 |
64 more gage(s) pass but are within 2x the cutoff distance — worth a glance if the structure dataset changes later.
Next steps
- Fill in
tributary_stream_patternsfrom section 1. - Resolve section 3's flags (or confirm none apply).
- Resolve section 4's at-risk gages.
- Cross-reference
return_flow_wdids/force_diversion_wdidsagainst any local accounting source you have for this basin. - Review the rendered schematic for this district before relying on it.
Evolution of the network
Computed 2026-08-20 08:47 from 97 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. Statistical tests (Mann-Kendall trend, Pettitt changepoint) require at least 8 years spanning at least 10 years of record -- gages below that report no signal, not "no change."
Data provenance & quality
Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade C (3/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (imported 2026-08-19) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.
| Check | State | What was measured |
|---|---|---|
| gage freshness | stale | newest gage reading is 45 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 293 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 4% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 262,508 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 — 99.67% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 31 co-listed station(s) and 777,166 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.
97 gage(s) / 1,214,326 daily values (1889-01-01–2026-07-06); 619 structure(s) with diversion records; 8016 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.
Read this first: the measurement network itself evolved
This basin was not always measured the way it is today — the API-era record is dense and recent, the early record sparse. 70 gage(s) and 311 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1957. 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) |
|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 1 | 0 |
| 1890s | 2 | 0 |
| 1900s | 3 | 0 |
| 1910s | 9 | 0 |
| 1920s | 11 | 0 |
| 1930s | 14 | 0 |
| 1940s | 18 | 0 |
| 1950s | 28 | 140 |
| 1960s | 32 | 184 |
| 1970s | 36 | 194 |
| 1980s | 34 | 208 |
| 1990s | 37 | 272 |
| 2000s | 45 | 262 |
| 2010s | 51 | 286 |
| 2020s | 48 | 273 |
Gage flow trend & changepoints
Every located gage with a period of record — dot size scales with the strength of its flow trend (|Sen slope| in %/decade, the same statistic as the table below), color with direction. An amber ring marks a detected Pettitt changepoint. Click a gage to chart its trend and shift.
| Gage | Trend | Change / decade | Significance | Years | Changepoint |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
▸
SAN FRANCISCO CREEK AT UPPER STATION, NEAR DEL NORTE SAFUPPCO |
↓ decreasing | -1039.2% | p=0.000 | 26 | ~2017 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE BELOW ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM, NM RIOELENM |
↓ decreasing | -65.3% | p=0.000 | 110 | ~1953 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE CANAL NEAR DEL NORTE RIOCANCO |
↓ decreasing | -47.1% | p=0.000 | 39 | ~1999 |
|
▸
CLOSED BASIN PROJECT CANAL NEAR ALAMOSA CBPALACO |
↓ decreasing | -28.3% | p=0.000 | 39 | ~2010 |
|
▸
NORTH CLEAR CREEK BELOW CONTINENTAL RESERVOIR NCLCONCO |
↓ decreasing | -25.2% | p=0.000 | 98 | ~1986 |
|
▸
SAN MARCIAL CONVEYANCE CHANNEL ON RIO GRANDE, NM SMCRIONM |
↓ decreasing | -18.9% | p=0.000 | 72 | ~1975 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT WASON, BELOW CREEDE, CO. RIOWASCO |
↓ decreasing | -14.2% | p=0.000 | 48 | ~1929 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY AT SAN ACACIA, NM RGFSANNM |
no clear trend | +11.0% | p=0.164 | 68 | ~1978 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT ALBUQUERQUE, NM. RIOALBNM |
↓ decreasing | -10.9% | p=0.008 | 61 | ~2000 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE NEAR LOBATOS RIOLOBCO |
↓ decreasing | -8.3% | p=0.001 | 128 | ~1930 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY AT SAN MARCIAL, NM SMFRIONM |
no clear trend | +7.3% | p=0.411 | 77 | ~1974 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT THIRTY MILE BRIDGE NEAR CREEDE RIOMILCO |
↓ decreasing | -6.2% | p=0.001 | 115 | ~1943 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT ALAMOSA RIOALACO |
no clear trend | -4.7% | p=0.189 | 115 | ~1929 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT EMBUDO, NM. RIOEMBNM |
↓ decreasing | -4.0% | p=0.000 | 128 | ~1949 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT MONTE VISTA RIOMONCO |
↑ increasing | +3.8% | p=0.024 | 101 | ~1967 |
|
▸
RIO CHAMA BELOW EL VADO DAM, NM RCHELVNM |
no clear trend | +3.2% | p=0.150 | 91 | ~1978 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE NEAR DEL NORTE, CO RIODELCO |
↓ decreasing | -2.4% | p=0.001 | 129 | ~1929 |
|
▸
RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE NEAR SAN ILDEFONSO, NM. RIOOTANM |
↓ decreasing | -2.0% | p=0.042 | 125 | — |
79 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 4% of 2377 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 (4600 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.
- RIO GRANDE AT MONTE VISTA: reach shifted from -934 cfs to +377 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 77 yr) [sedimentary uplands: 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=0.64) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [3 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -1.4 ft (1946–1975, no_trend)]
- EMPIRE CANAL NEAR MONTE VISTA: reach shifted from -384 cfs to +9 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.009, 29 yr) [sedimentary uplands: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [4 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -1.1 ft (1968–2024, decreasing)]
- PRAIRIE DITCH NEAR SEVEN-MILE PLAZA: reach shifted from -239 cfs to -91 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.004, 17 yr) [sedimentary uplands: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records] [4 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -5.6 ft (1947–2005, no_trend)]
- RIO GRANDE AT ALAMOSA: reach shifted from -291 cfs to +194 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 77 yr) [sedimentary uplands: 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=0.62) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [2 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +1.2 ft (1949–2021, increasing)]
- PINOS CREEK NEAR DEL NORTE, CO.: reach shifted from -369 cfs to +30 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 77 yr) [mountain crystalline canyon: minimal groundwater storage -- large or shifting unaccounted losses here are more consistent with data/measurement issues or unmodeled plumbing than with aquifer exchange] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.63) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change]
- RIO GRANDE ABOVE TRINCHERA CREEK NEAR LA SAUSES: reach shifted from +43 cfs to +206 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 77 yr) [sedimentary uplands: 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=0.66) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change]
Groundwater now has its own tab: 605 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Reservoirs now has its own tab: 66 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1975, click-to-chart histories.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Over the 115-year window with full coverage (1912–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 94% 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.
The basin's aquifer story, from 52,552 water-level measurements across 605 monitored well(s) (350 alluvial, 117 bedrock, rest unclassified) — plus 2 administered well(s) reporting metered pumping through diversion records. Observation wells and pumping wells are different populations and are never conflated. Click a well to chart its record.
Well map
Every monitored well with a location — hover for identity, click to chart its water-level record below. ● alluvial ● bedrock / confined (Denver Basin, High Plains, etc. — one-way, no human-timescale recharge) ● unclassified — marker size scales with the strength of the well's water-level trend (|Sen slope| in ft/decade — the same Mann-Kendall/Sen statistic as the trends table below); the smallest, faintest dots have too little record to test.
3D aquifer x-ray
Every aquifer unit as its own 3D head surface — alluvial water table on top, Denver Basin members (Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe, Laramie–Fox Hills) stacked beneath where measured — interpolated from measured water levels and animated through time. Units are never mixed; surfaces exist only inside each unit's well coverage (no extrapolation); thin epochs are suppressed with their reason shown. Vertical scale exaggerated for readability; z is head elevation in feet. Advisory — measured heads, not a calibrated model.
Water-table trends
Of 149 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 101 declining, 8 rising.
| Fastest-declining wells | Setting | ft / decade | Span | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ NA04000732CCC | alluvial | -10.46 | 14 yr | 0.0228 |
| ▸ NA04100636DDD RG33B | alluvial | -10.45 | 25 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04000801AAD1 RG29A | alluvial | -10.37 | 10 yr | 0.0006 |
| ▸ NA04000931BAB1 | unknown | -8.34 | 34 yr | 0.0001 |
| ▸ NA04101032ABB1 EW-40U | alluvial | -8.2 | 33 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04101032ABB2 EW-40C | alluvial | -7.96 | 33 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04100936DDA RG28A | alluvial | -7.53 | 42 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04000804BCC2 | alluvial | -7.17 | 56 yr | 0.0 |
Stream corridors — the surface connection
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.
RIO GRANDE AT MONTE VISTA: 3 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -1.4 ft (1946–1975, no_trend, p=0.2643). Glover screen: 0.4 cfs of nearby metered alluvial pumping → est. lagged depletion 0.2–0.3 cfs (uncalibrated T/S ranges; flagged for SPDSS calibration, AWAS cross-check, and expert review — DWR's AWAS is the authority).
EMPIRE CANAL NEAR MONTE VISTA: 4 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -1.1 ft (1968–2024, decreasing, p=0.0)
PRAIRIE DITCH NEAR SEVEN-MILE PLAZA: 4 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -5.6 ft (1947–2005, no_trend, p=0.0892)
RIO GRANDE AT ALAMOSA: 2 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +1.2 ft (1949–2021, increasing, p=0.0)
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.
66 reservoir(s) with 27,950 storage measurement(s), 1975–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 48,114 AF across 16 reservoir(s). 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?
Each reservoir drawn as a vessel: bubble size ∝ its record-high storage, fill level = 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 of its own record high otherwise (a wrong capacity would be worse than an honest record high, so only confident joins upgrade). Hover for numbers, click to chart its history below the map. A dashed teal ring marks reservoirs reporting live DWR telemetry — their fill reflects yesterday's storage, drawn as a dotted tail on charts and treated as provisional until the next verified HydroBase snapshot supersedes it. ● <25% ● 25–60% ● 60–90% ● >90%
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 reservoir to chart its full storage history.
| Reservoir | Last recorded storage (AF) | As of |
|---|---|---|
| ▸ RIO GRANDE RES (2003554) | 23,219 | 2025-10-31 |
| ▸ CONTINENTAL RES (2003536) | 12,320 | 2025-10-31 |
| ▸ SANTA MARIA RES (2003558) | 5,176 | 2025-10-31 |
| ▸ BEAVER PARK RES (2003532) | 2,714 | 2025-10-31 |
| ▸ BIG MEADOWS RES (2003589) | 2,269 | 2025-10-31 |
| ▸ ROAD CANYON RES (2003555) | 1,281 | 2010-10-31 |
| ▸ LOST LAKES RESERVOIR (2003546) | 835 | 2025-10-29 |
| ▸ LAKE HUMPHREYS RES (2003587) | 715 | 2010-10-31 |
Decrees, seniority, and administrative calls connected to this basin's flow network. Advisory reading aids on public DWR data — not administrative or legal conclusions. Rights on file: 9212 across 8016 structure(s); 117 structure(s) carry 0 court-case references.
Abandonment radar (16 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 ~1957 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- EAGLE D (2000613) (1875-05-05, 5.3 cfs decreed): last active 1962 — 34 years idle
- LOHR OVERFLOW SEPG D #1 (2000718) (1897-06-28, 9.0 cfs decreed): last active 1962 — 34 years idle
- WINTZ D (2000908) (1910-10-14, 2.1 cfs decreed): last active 1962 — 34 years idle
- MEADOW LAKE RES (2003547) (1916-06-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1965 — 31 years idle
- LARICK D 5 (2000708) (1874-05-01, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1966 — 30 years idle
- MACLEOD D 2 (2000724) (1882-05-31, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 26 years idle
- MACLEOD D 5 (2000727) (1878-04-01, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 26 years idle
- SHERIDAN NORTH D (2000841) (1883-04-01, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 26 years idle
- SHERIDAN SOUTH D (2000842) (1882-09-30, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1970 — 26 years idle
- BOWEN DRAIN DIST LAT SYS (2000549) (1922-06-21, 53.5 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 22 years idle
Compliance screens (184 advisory flags)
Screened 342 of 8016 structures with rights (413 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.
- EMPIRE CNL (2000623): Observed p99 daily rate 516.0 cfs (max 613.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 505.9 cfs across 49601 recorded day(s).
- RIO GRANDE RES (2003554): Observed p99 daily rate 224.0 cfs (max 2039.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.7 cfs across 250131 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
- PRAIRIE DRAIN D (2000799): Observed p99 daily rate 188.0 cfs (max 216.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 40.0 cfs across 2199 recorded day(s).
- COSTILLA D (2000587): Observed p99 daily rate 134.0 cfs (max 191.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 103.3 cfs across 28368 recorded day(s).
- SANTA MARIA RES (2003558): Observed p99 daily rate 109.4 cfs (max 1696.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.7 cfs across 146061 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
- EXCELSIOR D (2000627): Observed p99 daily rate 106.0 cfs (max 154.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 89.7 cfs across 40685 recorded day(s).
- CENTENNIAL D (2000566): Observed p99 daily rate 97.0 cfs (max 132.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 82.4 cfs across 35085 recorded day(s).
- CONTINENTAL RES (2003536): Observed p99 daily rate 95.3 cfs (max 1647.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.7 cfs across 162004 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
- CHICAGO D (2000575): Observed p99 daily rate 85.0 cfs (max 196.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 66.4 cfs across 33392 recorded day(s).
- WESTSIDE D (2000903): Observed p99 daily rate 50.0 cfs (max 80.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 35.8 cfs across 22621 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USFS QP37N (2001965) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 2044.0 | 0 | — |
| RIO GRANDE CNL (2000812) | 1879-11-30 | 23 | 1648.5 | 0 | — |
| RGWUA RECHARGE PROJECT (2001675) | 1959-11-01 | 1 | 1018.0 | 0 | yes |
| USFS QP37K (2001964) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 960.0 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP39F (2001984) | 1907-03-02 | 1 | 880.0 | 0 | — |
| FARMERS UNION CNL (2000631) | 1887-04-01 | 10 | 801.4 | 0 | — |
| EMPIRE CNL (2000623) | 1882-08-10 | 6 | 505.9 | 0 | — |
| SAN LUIS VALLEY CNL (2000829) | 1885-01-05 | 13 | 501.0 | 0 | yes |
| USFS QP37D (2001958) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 447.0 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP39D (2001979) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 390.2 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP31F (2001929) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 373.2 | 0 | — |
| PRAIRIE D (2000798) | 1872-05-01 | 19 | 367.0 | 0 | — |
| MONTE VISTA CNL (2000753) | 1882-05-31 | 12 | 340.8 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP37B (2001956) | 1905-06-03 | 1 | 324.6 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP37H (2001962) | 1907-03-02 | 1 | 293.4 | 0 | — |
No inventory or legal-document changes detected since the daily watch began.
If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.
What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.
Pick a calling right
Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.
Or enter an administration number directly
DWR administration numbers encode appropriation and adjudication dates; lower is more senior.