Conejos Creek

Evolution of the network

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 20 ranked gages are running at a median 12% of their own long-term norm for this window — 18 below a typical year, 2 at or above. Driest relative to its record: CONEJOS RIVER NEAR MANASSA, ranking 1st lowest of 8 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 19:48 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, 4 are trending down and 0 up, and 4 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Conejos River near Mogote, its annual mean flow changing -9.20 cfs per decade (-3.0% of its median annual flow) over 116 years (p=0.0031). The other 31 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
▸ Conejos River near Mogote☆ CONMOGCO	↓ decreasing	-9.20 cfs -3.0%	p=0.003	116	~1949
▸ Los Pinos River near Ortiz☆ LOSORTCO	↓ decreasing	-4.16 cfs -3.9%	p=0.005	107	~1949
▸ Conejos River near Lasauses☆ CONLASCO	↓ decreasing	-9.94 cfs -7.8%	p=0.005	104	~1949
▸ San Antonio River at Ortiz☆ SANORTCO	↓ decreasing	-1.23 cfs -6.4%	p=0.030	85	~1995

31 other gage(s) show no significant trend or changepoint (not shown).

1 of those show a significant trend once extended backwards from a retired neighbour's record: North Channel Conejos River near La Sauses (97 yr, decreasing). Those are reconstructions, not measurements — each gage's page shows both.

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. 29 gage(s) and 123 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1950. Every historical claim below is checked against this: long-term shifts that co-move with the growth of the network carry an explicit measurement-evolution caution, and abandonment screens whose idleness begins before the modern reporting era are flagged †.

Decade	Gages with data (median yr)	Structures reporting (median yr)
1900s	1	0
1910s	2	0
1920s	5	0
1930s	5	0
1940s	6	0
1950s	6	92
1960s	6	92
1970s	6	95
1980s	9	97
1990s	8	125
2000s	12	128
2010s	13	120
2020s	23	102

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 9% of 1370 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 (1493 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.

• SAN ANTONIO RIVER NEAR MANASSA: reach shifted from -438 cfs to +79 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.002, 76 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=0.45) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change]
• SOUTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSES: reach shifted from -148 cfs to +6 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 39 yr) [sedimentary uplands: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]
• CONEJOS RIVER NEAR CONEJOS: reach shifted from -25 cfs to -38 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.019, 28 yr) [sedimentary uplands: moderate groundwater connectivity -- gain/loss shifts can be real aquifer response; corroborate with nearby well records]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 140 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 3 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 95-year window with full coverage (1932–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 85% 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.

• BALL BROS OVERFLOW NO 2 (diversion): +6.9 cfs (100% of that reach's correction)
• HEADS PARK D (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• A D ARCHULETA D (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• AN CON IRR D (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• J F CHACON D NO 3 (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• J F CHACON D NO 2 (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• PABLO F LOPEZ WASTE D (diversion): +4.9 cfs (17% of that reach's correction)
• BRAZO DEL NORTE D (diversion): -2.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• GUADALUPE MAIN (diversion): -2.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• ROMERO D (diversion): -2.3 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)

17,980 water-level measurements across 140 monitored well(s) — 30 alluvial, 45 bedrock — plus 0 administered well(s) reporting metered pumping.

What is being counted

Observation wells and pumping wells are different populations and are never conflated: water levels come from monitored observation wells, and metered pumping comes from administered wells reporting through diversion records. Click any well to chart its own record.

Well map

3D aquifer x-ray

Every aquifer unit as its own head surface, animated through time.

Load 3D x-ray

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 17 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 3 declining, 1 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ NA03300934CB☆	unknown	-5.82	18 yr	0.0
▸ NA03501012BBC CON 2☆	unknown	-2.27	55 yr	0.0
▸ NA03300911CBB☆	alluvial	-0.55	49 yr	0.0017

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.

SAN ANTONIO RIVER NEAR MANASSA: 1 alluvial well(s) nearby

SOUTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSES: 2 alluvial well(s) nearby

CONEJOS RIVER NEAR CONEJOS: 0 alluvial well(s) nearby

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.

3 reservoir(s) with 10,450 storage measurement(s), 1950–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 25,718 AF across 2 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)
▸ PLATORO RESERVOIR (2203574) ☆	24,848	2025-10-30	—	—	dossier →
▸ COVE LAKE RES (2203573) ☆	884	1964-10-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ TRUJILLO MEADOWS RES (2203575) ☆	870	2025-10-31	—	—	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
Cumbres Trestle	10030	0.1	0.0	—	April 6 (26.2 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 droughtA winter that shorts the snowpack. It happens two ways: a dry one, where the snow never comes, and a warm one, where near-normal snow falls but melts off weeks early -- and the river feels them differently.), and the river feels them differently. In 14 of the last 46 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 2 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 50% of median.

The snow never came: 1981, 1990, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2025, 2026. The snow left early: 2020, 2022.

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 — Platoro Reservoir Inflow

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 13 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 39% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 7, probably not more than 23. Our own record at this gage shows 7 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 93 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →

We test a record-based adjustment of the April benchmark at every graded point. Here it did not beat NRCS over 37 replayed seasons (14% typical miss unadjusted vs 13% adjusted), so none is shown — NRCS’s own forecast, unadjusted, is the best April benchmark available for this river. Why we test →

90% chance of at least	70% chance of at least	50% chance of at least	30% chance of at least	10% chance of at least	Normal	Observed
7	10	13	17	23	33	7*

How good are these forecasts here? (1988–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 37 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 13%, with a low bias of 2%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 78% 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 45 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 89% of a normal season (a snow-to-runoff elasticityHow strongly one number moves with another. A snow-to-runoff elasticity of 1.5 means a 10% shortfall in April snowpack has typically become a 15% shortfall in the season's water. of 0.5). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 95% of a normal season, against 109% 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.

Runoff outlook — Conejos R nr Mogote

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 27 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 31% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 12, probably not more than 55. Our own record at this gage shows 15 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 93 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →

We test a record-based adjustment of the April benchmark at every graded point. Here it did not beat NRCS over 44 replayed seasons (12% typical miss unadjusted vs 11% adjusted), so none is shown — NRCS’s own forecast, unadjusted, is the best April benchmark available for this river. Why we test →

90% chance of at least	70% chance of at least	50% chance of at least	30% chance of at least	10% chance of at least	Normal	Observed
12	20	27	37	55	86	15*

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 — 75 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 12%, with a high bias of 2%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 84% 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 45 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 71% of a normal season (a snow-to-runoff elasticityHow strongly one number moves with another. A snow-to-runoff elasticity of 1.5 means a 10% shortfall in April snowpack has typically become a 15% shortfall in the season's water. of 0.8). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 80% 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 1850-01-01 to 2009-10-01. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 6% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 6 abandonment screens and 100 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: 1980 across 1764 structure(s); 133 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 1969–2025, 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 (57 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	61	8	1870-03-01
2015	365	373	1854-03-31
2016	366	344	1850-01-01
2017	365	307	1855-04-30
2018	365	427	1855-06-01
2019	365	547	1850-01-01
2020	366	523	1854-03-31
2021	365	533	1854-03-31
2022	365	291	1854-03-31
2023	365	136	1854-03-31
2024	366	105	1854-03-31
2025	365	117	1854-03-31

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.

• EL SERRITO D (2200539) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-16 (105+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 62% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• EL SERRITO D (2200539) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-22 (11+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 62% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• BALL BROS OVERFLOW NO 1 (2200509) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-20 (115+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• COTTONWOOD D (2200532) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-04-30 (5+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• EAST BEND D (2200535) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-04-30 (5+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• EL CODA D (2200538) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-10-31 (143+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 67% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• EL CODA D (2200538) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-09-03 (7+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 67% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• EL CODA D (2200538) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-25 (15+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 67% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• EPHRAIM D (2200541) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-21 (266+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• EL SERRITO D (2200539) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-09 (5+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 62% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• ALAMO D (2200501) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-06-27 (288+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 97% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• ANGUSTURA D (2200503) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-06-16 (329+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS 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
USFS QP23W (2200946) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP23U (2200945) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP22H (2200924) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP23H (2200932) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP23M (2200940) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP23N (2200941) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
MOGOTE DITCH (2200591) DWR↗☆	1887-06-02	13.6% / 0.0%	13.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP23F (2200930) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
USFS QP22A (2200917) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
MANASSA D NO 3 (2200593) DWR↗☆	1855-03-01	100.0% / 4.2%	6.3% / 0.0%
RICHFIELD CANAL (2200616) DWR↗☆	1881-10-12	34.1% / 0.0%	23.1% / 0.0%
ROMERO D (2200619) DWR↗☆	1855-03-01	100.0% / 4.2%	6.3% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (6 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 ~1950 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

• MANASSA D NO 2 (2200592) DWR↗☆ (1883-04-21, 23.2 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 40 years idle
• JOHN W FLOYD OVRFLW NO 2 (2200572) DWR↗☆ (1883-04-21, 2.2 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 39 years idle
• JOHN W FLOYD OVRFLW NO 3 (2200573) DWR↗☆ (1883-04-21, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 39 years idle
• COLD SPRINGS D (2200529) DWR↗☆ (1911-08-05, 1.1 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 38 years idle
• BALL BROS OVERFLOW NO 2 (2200510) DWR↗☆ (1883-04-21, 20.0 cfs decreed): last active 1988 — 25 years idle
• BOSQUE IRRIGATING D (2200514) DWR↗☆ (1913-04-17, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 2003 — 10 years idle

Compliance screens (100 advisory flags)

Screened 132 of 1764 structures with rights (139 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.

• TAOS VALLEY CANAL NO 3 (2200639) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 265.0 cfs (max 300.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 15.0 cfs across 7204 recorded day(s).
• LOVATO D (2200588) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 130.0 cfs (max 145.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 7.5 cfs across 4590 recorded day(s).
• NORTH EASTERN D (2200609) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 122.0 cfs (max 130.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 92.8 cfs across 9339 recorded day(s).
• SELEDONIA VALDEZ IRR MIL (2200630) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 85.8 cfs (max 310.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 31.8 cfs across 18076 recorded day(s).
• LOVATO IRR D (2200589) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 80.0 cfs (max 140.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 53.1 cfs across 11586 recorded day(s).
• HEADS MILL & IRG D (2200554) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 68.0 cfs (max 95.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 61.1 cfs across 29350 recorded day(s).
• ALAMO D (2200501) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 55.0 cfs (max 56.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 53.5 cfs across 8358 recorded day(s).
• TROGILLO D (2200644) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 53.5 cfs (max 53.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 53.5 cfs across 9284 recorded day(s).
• GUADALUPE MAIN (2200553) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 52.0 cfs (max 76.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 13.5 cfs across 34637 recorded day(s).
• SAN JUAN SAN RAFAEL D (2200624) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 52.0 cfs (max 75.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 51.8 cfs across 17362 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
USFS QP23W (2200946) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	1	2828.6	0	—
USFS QP23U (2200945) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	1736.6	0	—
USFS QP22H (2200924) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	1	612.2	0	—
USFS QP23H (2200932) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	537.2	0	—
USFS QP23M (2200940) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	520.4	0	—
USFS QP23N (2200941) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	365.2	0	—
MOGOTE DITCH (2200591) DWR↗☆	1887-06-02	1	342.4	0	—
USFS QP23F (2200930) DWR↗☆	1907-03-02	1	339.8	0	—
USFS QP22A (2200917) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	181.8	0	—
MANASSA D NO 3 (2200593) DWR↗☆	1855-03-01	10	169.6	2	—
RICHFIELD CANAL (2200616) DWR↗☆	1881-10-12	2	168.7	0	—
ROMERO D (2200619) DWR↗☆	1855-03-01	9	165.0	0	—
NORTON DRAIN MAIN BRANCH (2200912) DWR↗☆	1968-04-29	2	150.0	0	—
SANFORD D (2200627) DWR↗☆	1885-10-20	2	146.3	0	—
USFS QP23H4 (2200936) DWR↗☆	1905-06-03	1	140.8	0	—

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

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

1 application in the 2026-06 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 2026-08-31 (0 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 1 filings, with excerpts

Case	What it asks	County	Excerpt
2026CW3011	make absolute	CONEJOS	CASE NUMBER 2026 CW3011 Application to make conditional water right absolute in Conejos County Name, address, email address of applicant: Tyler Huffaker, PO Box 54, Manassa, CO 81141 tophillquarterhorses@gmail.com (atty Erich Schwiesow PO Box 1974, Alamosa, CO…

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
SAN LUIS VALLEY IRRIGATION WELL OWNERS INC	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2026-12-31	—	plan file
SUBDISTRICT 6 LOVATO DITCH	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	—	—	plan file
SDT ALPHA HAY FIELDS 13 AND 14	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Pending	—	—	plan file
SUBDISTRICT NO 3 LOVATO DITCH	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Withdrawn	—	—	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.

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
Simulate

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