Culebra Creek

Evolution of the network

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 15 ranked gages are running at a median 20% of their own long-term norm for this window — 13 below a typical year, 2 at or above. Driest relative to its record: VALLEJOS D 3 FOOT, ranking 1st lowest of 2 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 19:49 from 20 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 20 gages with enough record, 3 are trending down and 0 up, and 3 carry a detected shift. The clearest is Culebra Creek below San Luis, its annual mean flow changing -30.93 cfs per decade (-45.5% of its median annual flow) over 16 years (p=0.0014). The other 16 show no clear signal either way.

Gage	Trend	Change / decade cfs · % of median annual flow	Significance	Years	Changepoint
▸ Culebra Creek below San Luis☆ CULBANCO	↓ decreasing	-30.93 cfs -45.5%	p=0.001	16	~1945
▸ Culebra Creek at San Luis☆ CULSANCO	↓ decreasing	-2.28 cfs -5.3%	p=0.002	98	~1949
▸ Ventero Creek below Sanchez Reservoir☆ VENSANCO	↓ decreasing	-3.87 cfs -30.7%	p=0.049	14	—
▸ Costilla Creek below Costilla Dam, Nm.☆ COSBELNM	no clear trend	+2.10 cfs +12.7%	p=0.078	41	~1978

⚠️ 1 gage 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.

16 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. 17 gage(s) and 94 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1952. 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)
1920s	1	0
1930s	1	0
1940s	7	0
1950s	7	48
1960s	8	56
1970s	8	61
1980s	7	64
1990s	7	66
2000s	7	70
2010s	8	80
2020s	9	93

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 16% of 490 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 (108 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.

• CULEBRA CREEK AT SAN LUIS, CO: reach shifted from -3 cfs to +21 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.022, 26 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=0.59) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 53 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 5 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1963, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Not enough gages with a long enough common-coverage window yet to fingerprint shared patterns.

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.

• ROMERO D (diversion): +24.0 cfs (100% of that reach's correction)
• SAN LUIS PEOPLES D (diversion): -8.9 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• VEGA D (diversion): -8.9 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• SAN LUIS MILL D (diversion): -8.9 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• ROBERT ALLEN D (diversion): -8.9 cfs (25% of that reach's correction)
• ASSOCIATION D (diversion): +2.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
• MONDRAGON D (diversion): +2.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
• CULEBRA SANCHEZ CANAL VA (diversion): +2.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
• ABAN SANCHEZ D (diversion): +2.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
• CHAMA D EXT (diversion): +2.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)

5 reservoir(s) with 8,268 storage measurement(s), 1963–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 2,510 AF across 3 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)
▸ SANCHEZ RES (2403576) ☆	2,474	2025-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ SALAZAR RES NO 1 (2403579) ☆	36	2024-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ EASTDALE RESERVOIR NO 1 (2403577) ☆	0	2025-10-09	—	—	dossier →
▸ EASTDALE RESERVOIR NO 2 (2403578) ☆	0	2015-08-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ SALAZAR RES 2 (2403580) ☆	0	2015-10-30	—	—	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
Culebra #2	10560	0.0	0.0	—	April 5 (14.0 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 (1980–2026)

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 47 winters the snow never came — the pack peaked below 80% of its median. In 1 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 44% of median.

The snow never came: 1981, 1986, 1988, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018, 2022, 2025, 2026. The snow left early: 1989.

Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1980). 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 — Culebra Ck at San Luis

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 2 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 22% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 1, probably not more than 6. Our own record at this gage shows 2 kAF so far this period (partial record: 36 of 93 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →

The record-adjusted April benchmark

NRCS’s April issue (2026-04-01) called even odds at 2 kAF over 04-01 to 09-30. Re-anchoring that number on this river’s own history — how its April issues have verified, the winter’s baseflow, and the district’s April 1 snowpack — moves it to 9 kAF. The river has delivered 4 kAF so far (partial record).

Computed by this site — not an NRCS number, and shown only because it earned it: replayed over 44 past seasons here (1980–2025), never seeing the year it predicts, the adjustment cut the typical April miss from 27% to 11%. At points where it does not beat NRCS, no adjusted number appears. Coefficients are frozen each August; the model never changes mid-season. Method and honest limits →

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
1	2	2	4	6	11	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 — 74 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 26%, with a high bias of 4%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 90% 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 (1980–2025)

Across 46 measured years, April snowpack has explained only part of this river’s season — the dots below scatter widely, so read any single year’s snow number loosely here. In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 129% of a normal season, against 95% 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.

Right now

This is the 8th-driest week 27 in 100 years of record at CULEBRA CREEK AT SAN LUIS, CO (as of 2026-06-29; this week’s flow sits at the 8th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Costilla County is 31% in D4 exceptional drought (2026-08-25). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 77% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.

Every year since 1927, week by week

Each thin row is a year at CULEBRA CREEK AT SAN LUIS, 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.

The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000

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

The law’s own drought gauge

When water runs short, administration answers: calls reach further back in time, and more decreed rights go junior to the calling right. This is that response, weekly since 2015 — 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 (1366 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	Recovery
unnamed dry spell	2023-10-30 → 2026-07-06	140	7th (2025-12-15)	not yet
the 2020-22 drought	2022-04-04 → 2023-06-26	64	15th (2022-11-14)	not yet
the 2020-22 drought	2020-08-31 → 2022-01-10	71	16th (2020-12-21)	not yet
the 2018 drought	2018-11-19 → 2019-10-14	47	14th (2019-03-25)	30 weeks
the 2012-13 drought	2012-08-27 → 2013-12-09	67	17th (2012-11-26)	4 weeks
the 2012-13 drought	2011-11-21 → 2012-05-07	24	24th (2012-01-02)	87 weeks
the 2002 drought	2002-12-30 → 2003-11-03	44	10th (2003-04-07)	43 weeks
the 1977 drought	1975-12-08 → 1978-09-11	144	10th (1977-12-05)	46 weeks
unnamed dry spell	1974-11-04 → 1975-10-06	48	7th (1975-03-10)	199 weeks
unnamed dry spell	1971-11-29 → 1973-09-03	92	6th (1973-02-12)	0 weeks
unnamed dry spell	1971-04-12 → 1971-08-30	20	27th (1971-04-26)	104 weeks
unnamed dry spell	1967-05-08 → 1968-03-11	44	25th (1967-11-20)	49 weeks
the 1963-64 drought	1963-01-14 → 1965-10-04	142	10th (1964-03-23)	3 weeks
unnamed dry spell	1960-11-28 → 1961-08-07	36	14th (1961-03-06)	52 weeks

Detected mechanically: the 26-week smoothed percentile below the 30th for at least 20 weeks; recovered on regaining the 50th. 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.

When this basin claimed its water

Every bar is a year’s new appropriations (306 rights across 100 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.08 — essentially no wet-dry pattern; here, law and settlement set the pace, not the weather. Across the state both behaviors exist: ephemeral southwest basins file after wet demonstrations, transbasin-source basins under drought — and the biggest statewide filing waves sat in the 1950s drought and after 2002, not in the wet 1980s–90s.

Appropriation dates are the CLAIMED initiation of a right, not the courthouse filing date; the record is survivor-biased (abandoned claims are absent, so failed dry-era scrambles are undercounted); and the big 1960s and 2000s spikes sit on legal events — the pre-1969-Act adjudication era and 2000s legislation — not on weather. A correlation here is a description, never a cause.

New to how a dry winter becomes a call on the river? Anatomy of a drought walks the chain in four minutes — snow to rivers to reservoirs to calls to the water table.

Decreed rights on this network run from 1852-04-10 to 2000-05-04. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 32% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 3 abandonment screens and 48 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: 541 across 453 structure(s); 69 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.

• CHOURY D (2400527) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-10-19 (12+ days) — call at SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CHOURY D (2400527) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-09-28 (7+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CHOURY D (2400527) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-31 (14+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CULEBRA EASTDALE D (2400533) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-29 (9+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CHOURY D (2400527) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-08 (9+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CULEBRA CERRITOS CANAL (2400532) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-04 (10+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• J M J MAEZ D (2400553) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-29 (113+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 54% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• ABAN SANCHEZ D (2400502) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-28 (103+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• ALBERT AND VIGIL D (2400509) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-28 (125+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• ANTONIO VALDEZ D (2400512) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-28 (118+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• ANTONIO SANCHEZ D (2400513) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-28 (117+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• GUADALUPE SANCHEZ D (2400550) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-06-28 (124+ 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
EASTDALE 1 CNL (2400537) DWR↗☆	1890-04-21	11.9% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
EASTDALE 2 CNL (2400538) DWR↗☆	1890-04-21	11.9% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
CULEBRA EASTDALE D (2400533) DWR↗☆	1854-06-30	11.9% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
EASTDALE CULEBRA NO 1 D (2400619) DWR↗☆	1974-06-01	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
SAN ACACIO D (2400581) DWR↗☆	1856-04-30	64.0% / 4.2%	64.0% / 4.2%
SAN LUIS MILL D (2400618) DWR↗☆	1859-10-01	11.9% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
CERRO D (2400522) DWR↗☆	1857-11-30	58.4% / 0.0%	58.4% / 0.0%
CULEBRA CERRITOS CANAL (2400532) DWR↗☆	1911-09-02	6.3% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
SAN PEDRO D (2400589) DWR↗☆	1852-04-30	100.0% / 100.0%	11.9% / 0.0%
SAN LUIS PEOPLES D (2400586) DWR↗☆	1852-04-10	100.0% / 100.0%	11.9% / 0.0%
VALLEJOS D (2400594) DWR↗☆	1854-03-31	100.0% / 100.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
SAN FRANCISCO D (2400583) DWR↗☆	1860-05-31	58.4% / 0.0%	58.4% / 0.0%

Abandonment radar (3 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 ~1952 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

• ABUNDO MARTINEZ D (2400609) DWR↗☆ (1874-05-31, 1.8 cfs decreed): last active 1963 — 25 years idle
• VEGA D (2400597) DWR↗☆ (1905-07-03, 0.7 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 15 years idle
• CERRO CNL (2400521) DWR↗☆ (1853-01-01, 5.5 cfs decreed): last active 1976 — 12 years idle

Compliance screens (48 advisory flags)

Screened 84 of 453 structures with rights (92 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.

• CERRO CNL (2400521) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 42.8 cfs (max 48.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.5 cfs across 710 recorded day(s).
• VEGA D (2400597) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 12.0 cfs (max 12.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.7 cfs across 730 recorded day(s).
• A A SALAZAR D 1 (2400500) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 10.5 cfs (max 20.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.0 cfs across 3191 recorded day(s).
• ALFONSO DITCH (2400510) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 10.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.0 cfs across 4850 recorded day(s).
• QUATES D 1 (2400573) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 27.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.5 cfs across 32572 recorded day(s).
• QUATES D 2 (2400574) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 10.0 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.5 cfs across 11026 recorded day(s).
• GARCIA D (2400549) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 6.8 cfs (max 22.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.0 cfs across 11148 recorded day(s).
• ACEQUIA MADRE D (2400506) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 6.0 cfs (max 10.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.0 cfs across 18230 recorded day(s).
• RUMALDO GALLEGOS DITCH (2400630) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 5.9 cfs (max 5.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 0.6 cfs across 516 recorded day(s).
• CHOURY D (2400527) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 5.7 cfs (max 8.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.9 cfs across 21584 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
EASTDALE 1 CNL (2400537) DWR↗☆	1890-04-21	4	610.0	0	—
EASTDALE 2 CNL (2400538) DWR↗☆	1890-04-21	3	290.0	0	—
CULEBRA EASTDALE D (2400533) DWR↗☆	1854-06-30	3	283.1	0	—
EASTDALE CULEBRA NO 1 D (2400619) DWR↗☆	1974-06-01	2	98.0	3468	—
SAN ACACIO D (2400581) DWR↗☆	1856-04-30	1	46.0	0	—
SAN LUIS MILL D (2400618) DWR↗☆	1859-10-01	2	45.0	0	—
CERRO D (2400522) DWR↗☆	1857-11-30	1	40.0	0	—
CULEBRA CERRITOS CANAL (2400532) DWR↗☆	1911-09-02	1	37.5	0	—
SAN PEDRO D (2400589) DWR↗☆	1852-04-30	2	32.7	0	—
SAN LUIS PEOPLES D (2400586) DWR↗☆	1852-04-10	2	24.8	0	—
VALLEJOS D (2400594) DWR↗☆	1854-03-31	2	18.5	0	—
SAN FRANCISCO D (2400583) DWR↗☆	1860-05-31	1	16.0	0	—
W F MEYER D (2400599) DWR↗☆	1905-12-15	3	16.0	0	—
TORCIDO D (2400592) DWR↗☆	1874-05-31	5	13.9	0	—
FRANCISCO SANCHEZ D (2400544) DWR↗☆	1858-03-31	1	12.5	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
SKOGLUND	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Additional Info Needed	—	—	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.