Hydrohistorian
San Luis Creek
Who may take water from the San Luis Creek, who is calling for it today, and how it is running, compiled from Colorado Division of Water Resources records. Click anything on the map for its record.
San Luis Creek on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 25 · clicktap anything for its record
The well-permit cells in view, as a table
Each row is one ~1-mile cell (0.02°) with the permits the file spots inside it, split into water-supply permits and monitoring holes (DWR’s two monitoring categories: drilled to look at the water, not to pump it). These are permits, not wells: a permit is a piece of paper, and the file does not say which were drilled. Spotting is the file’s own, about a mile at best, which is why the cells are no finer.
| Lat | Lon | Water-supply permits | Monitoring holes |
|---|
Browse this district’s ditches, gages, reservoirs, wells and springs as a list.
The Crestone Creek, North is below normal for late September -- 70% of normal flow. 2 calls stand against it right now; the most senior right calling dates to 1870. DWR's statements do not settle whether 7 more calls reach it.
Schematic
Historical
Evolution of the network
Trends
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Our computation, no independent reference · no independent reference; see /methods
This year, in context
In the weeks around 2026-09-27 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 14 ranked gages are running at a median 141% of their own long-term norm for this window — 5 below a typical year, 9 at or above. Driest relative to its record: GARNER CREEK NEAR VILLA GROVE, ranking 2nd lowest of 28 years.
How this comparison is made
Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-09-27, compared with the same window in every year of its own record — so a gage is only ever measured against itself, and gages with no record in the window are counted out rather than guessed.
Gage flow trend & changepoints
What counts as a trend here
Computed 2026-10-20 17:41 from 20 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. The series is each gage's annual mean flow in cfsCubic feet per second, a rate of flow. One cfs running for a day is about 2 acre-feet. (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, 0 are trending down and 0 up, and 1 carries a detected shift. The other 19 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
▸
⚠️
Major Creek near Villa Grove MAJVILCO |
no clear trend | +0.14 cfs +18.8% | p=0.095 | 27 | ~2006 |
⚠️ 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.
19 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. 14 gage(s) and 99 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1969. 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 | 2 | 0 |
| 1940s | 2 | 0 |
| 1950s | 2 | 44 |
| 1960s | 2 | 56 |
| 1970s | 2 | 74 |
| 1980s | 4 | 95 |
| 1990s | 2 | 74 |
| 2000s | 13 | 116 |
| 2010s | 14 | 118 |
| 2020s | 13 | 99 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 20% of 586 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 (1951–2026)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1951 (479 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.
No reach shows a statistically significant long-term gain/loss shift.
Groundwater now has its own tab: 206 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Over the 28-year window with full coverage (1999–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 11 gage(s) explains 79% of year-to-year variance (almost certainly a basin-wide climate/snowpack driver).
GARVILCO, KERVILCO, MAJVILCO don't move with that shared pattern -- a real, localized signal (a new diversion, land-use change, or a gage-specific data problem) worth a closer look, not necessarily noise.
Data provenance & quality
Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade C (3/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260928 (imported 2026-10-04) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.
| Check | State | What was measured |
|---|---|---|
| gage freshness | stale | newest gage reading is 23 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 354 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 20% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 102,978 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 — 100.00% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 8 co-listed station(s) and 47,071 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.
20 gage(s) / 186,417 daily values (1923-06-01–2026-09-27); 203 structure(s) with diversion records; 847 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.
Groundwater
Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR groundwater wells ↗ Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR well permits ↗
19,132 water-level measurements across 206 monitored well(s) — 70 alluvial, 62 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 71 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 37 declining, 5 rising.
| Fastest-declining wells | Setting | ft / decade | Span | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ NA04101003AAA2 EW-46C | alluvial | -7.66 | 11 yr | 0.002 |
| ▸ NA04001106DAD EW-71C | alluvial | -4.27 | 26 yr | 0.0145 |
| ▸ BACA-2 | unknown | -4.16 | 19 yr | 0.0 |
| ▸ NA04201027DAD2 EW-52C | alluvial | -3.94 | 11 yr | 0.0203 |
| ▸ NA04501007CCA RG02 | unknown | -3.26 | 46 yr | 0.0048 |
| ▸ NA04101013ABD1 EW-79C | alluvial | -3.25 | 35 yr | 0.0266 |
| ▸ NA04301028BBB2 EW-62C | unknown | -2.83 | 11 yr | 0.0001 |
| ▸ NA04101002ABA RG24A | alluvial | -2.81 | 45 yr | 0.0001 |
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.
57% are constructed wells; 16% tie to a decreed structure. A permit is permission to drill, not a water right; most here are exempt household wells. More in three things called “well”, or turn on the Well permits chip on the map above to see where they sit.
Permits issued here, by year
2,170 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1953 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 2001, and the busiest year was 1972 with 109. The district’s 323 monitoring holes are counted apart: they are drilled to look, not to pump. A permit is not a well, and the year is the date the paper was issued, not a drilling date. The 3,002 above counts every permit on file here; 509 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.
water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown
The counts by year, as a table
| Year | Issued | Monitoring holes | Water-supply | Issued through that year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1953 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 1954 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 15 |
| 1955 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 27 |
| 1956 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 34 |
| 1957 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 39 |
| 1958 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 46 |
| 1959 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 49 |
| 1960 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 58 |
| 1963 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 59 |
| 1964 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 63 |
| 1965 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 66 |
| 1966 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 71 |
| 1967 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 80 |
| 1969 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 82 |
| 1970 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 83 |
| 1971 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 93 |
| 1972 | 109 | 0 | 109 | 202 |
| 1973 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 210 |
| 1974 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 215 |
| 1975 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 223 |
| 1976 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 236 |
| 1977 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 254 |
| 1978 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 272 |
| 1979 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 285 |
| 1980 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 304 |
| 1981 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 316 |
| 1982 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 334 |
| 1983 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 353 |
| 1984 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 362 |
| 1985 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 375 |
| 1986 | 26 | 3 | 23 | 401 |
| 1987 | 72 | 0 | 72 | 473 |
| 1988 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 492 |
| 1989 | 28 | 0 | 28 | 520 |
| 1990 | 54 | 13 | 41 | 574 |
| 1991 | 24 | 2 | 22 | 598 |
| 1992 | 39 | 0 | 39 | 637 |
| 1993 | 49 | 8 | 41 | 686 |
| 1994 | 44 | 4 | 40 | 730 |
| 1995 | 118 | 72 | 46 | 848 |
| 1996 | 152 | 86 | 66 | 1,000 |
| 1997 | 81 | 7 | 74 | 1,081 |
| 1998 | 62 | 37 | 25 | 1,143 |
| 1999 | 73 | 3 | 70 | 1,216 |
| 2000 | 60 | 7 | 53 | 1,276 |
| 2001 | 69 | 1 | 68 | 1,345 |
| 2002 | 69 | 5 | 64 | 1,414 |
| 2003 | 72 | 0 | 72 | 1,486 |
| 2004 | 42 | 4 | 38 | 1,528 |
| 2005 | 43 | 1 | 42 | 1,571 |
| 2006 | 41 | 4 | 37 | 1,612 |
| 2007 | 49 | 0 | 49 | 1,661 |
| 2008 | 37 | 2 | 35 | 1,698 |
| 2009 | 29 | 6 | 23 | 1,727 |
| 2010 | 27 | 2 | 25 | 1,754 |
| 2011 | 38 | 5 | 33 | 1,792 |
| 2012 | 45 | 13 | 32 | 1,837 |
| 2013 | 37 | 9 | 28 | 1,874 |
| 2014 | 46 | 0 | 46 | 1,920 |
| 2015 | 29 | 1 | 28 | 1,949 |
| 2016 | 45 | 0 | 45 | 1,994 |
| 2017 | 45 | 1 | 44 | 2,039 |
| 2018 | 83 | 10 | 73 | 2,122 |
| 2019 | 62 | 13 | 49 | 2,184 |
| 2020 | 44 | 0 | 44 | 2,228 |
| 2021 | 52 | 0 | 52 | 2,280 |
| 2022 | 39 | 1 | 38 | 2,319 |
| 2023 | 48 | 2 | 46 | 2,367 |
| 2024 | 54 | 1 | 53 | 2,421 |
| 2025 | 37 | 0 | 37 | 2,458 |
| 2026 | 35 | 0 | 35 | 2,493 |
Every district in the file on one scale · the whole file, one year at a time · Plate 4 of the Driller’s Atlas.
What drillers reached, township by township
21 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (1,498 permits in all). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 900 ft below ground: a faint lane spans the 10th to 90th percentile of where the permits naming that aquifer stopped, the solid band their screens, the tick the median. This is the permit file’s view of the ground — the aquifer is the name the driller wrote, the band is where those holes ended — not a geologic map, and a township is as fine as it gets. Monitoring holes are left out. 5 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.
237
163
161
145
136
122 · 94% here
111 · 74% here
75
66
49
44
35
32 · 71% here
27
26
24
14 · 79% here
12
7
6 · 86% here
6
unnamed other named faint = where the permits naming it stopped (10th–90th pct) · solid = their screens · tick = median · ft below ground as filed
Every township here, as a table
| Township | Share of its permits in this district | Aquifer named | Permits with a depth | Drilled depth p10 / p50 / p90, ft | Screen top p10 / p50 / p90, ft | Screen bottom p10 / p50 / p90, ft |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1N R1E Baca Grant | 99% | unnamed | 194 | 79 / 120 / 170 | 44 / 90 / 140 | 78 / 120 / 160 |
| T1N R1E Baca Grant | 99% | other named | 42 | 95 / 122 / 159 | 67 / 100 / 124 | 89 / 124 / 154 |
| T43N R12E New Mexico PM | 99% | other named | 24 | 14 / 41 / 52 | 12 / 20 / 47 | 25 / 50 / 55 |
| T43N R12E New Mexico PM | 99% | unnamed | 139 | 17 / 60 / 268 | 25 / 110 / 258 | 41 / 145 / 284 |
| T44N R10E New Mexico PM | 96% | other named | 64 | 66 / 209 / 439 | 33 / 110 / 352 | 60 / 200 / 400 |
| T44N R10E New Mexico PM | 96% | unnamed | 97 | 120 / 325 / 720 | 43 / 198 / 536 | 106 / 327 / 792 |
| T45N R10E New Mexico PM | 99% | unnamed | 112 | 80 / 147 / 252 | 40 / 76 / 188 | 80 / 154 / 253 |
| T45N R10E New Mexico PM | 99% | other named | 33 | 68 / 164 / 300 | 24 / 50 / 80 | 80 / 129 / 248 |
| T46N R9E New Mexico PM | 99% | other named | 5 | 110 / 150 / 183 | — | — |
| T46N R9E New Mexico PM | 99% | unnamed | 130 | 35 / 160 / 300 | 37 / 120 / 243 | 66 / 192 / 329 |
| T45N R9E New Mexico PM | 94% | other named | 23 | 88 / 120 / 199 | 44 / 92 / 176 | 100 / 125 / 196 |
| T45N R9E New Mexico PM | 94% | unnamed | 99 | 120 / 194 / 400 | 59 / 156 / 300 | 120 / 218 / 400 |
| T43N R10E New Mexico PM | 74% | other named | 58 | 70 / 147 / 542 | 40 / 100 / 325 | 70 / 120 / 365 |
| T43N R10E New Mexico PM | 74% | unnamed | 53 | 80 / 380 / 840 | 20 / 70 / 546 | 53 / 122 / 870 |
| T46N R8E New Mexico PM | 96% | unnamed | 75 | 35 / 185 / 453 | 22 / 133 / 273 | 50 / 210 / 458 |
| T1N R1W Baca Grant | 99% | unnamed | 20 | 93 / 112 / 222 | 46 / 80 / 174 | 95 / 100 / 531 |
| T1N R1W Baca Grant | 99% | other named | 46 | 118 / 186 / 612 | 49 / 120 / 138 | 97 / 140 / 189 |
| T47N R7E New Mexico PM | 97% | unnamed | 46 | 32 / 129 / 345 | 26 / 78 / 253 | 60 / 145 / 352 |
| T43N R11E New Mexico PM | 99% | unnamed | 41 | 25 / 100 / 188 | 30 / 60 / 140 | 50 / 130 / 186 |
| T47N R9E New Mexico PM | 100% | unnamed | 34 | 50 / 110 / 277 | 24 / 56 / 194 | 49 / 130 / 248 |
| T41N R11E New Mexico PM | 71% | other named | 28 | 83 / 130 / 400 | 39 / 44 / 52 | 76 / 84 / 96 |
| T1S R1W Baca Grant | 100% | other named | 23 | 89 / 140 / 496 | 38 / 43 / 54 | 83 / 89 / 97 |
| T44N R11E New Mexico PM | 98% | unnamed | 18 | 53 / 120 / 410 | 52 / 100 / 384 | 67 / 120 / 440 |
| T44N R11E New Mexico PM | 98% | other named | 8 | 70 / 130 / 633 | 52 / 140 / 256 | 68 / 180 / 744 |
| T46N R10E New Mexico PM | 98% | unnamed | 23 | 81 / 140 / 494 | 44 / 100 / 184 | 81 / 140 / 328 |
| T46N R7E New Mexico PM | 79% | unnamed | 14 | 104 / 190 / 305 | 60 / 108 / 227 | 116 / 190 / 315 |
| T45N R11E New Mexico PM | 100% | unnamed | 12 | 13 / 418 / 681 | 97 / 282 / 446 | 128 / 418 / 716 |
| T47N R8E New Mexico PM | 100% | unnamed | 7 | 47 / 190 / 420 | 32 / 150 / 364 | 78 / 282 / 430 |
| T1S R1E Baca Grant | 86% | other named | 5 | 432 / 500 / 685 | — | — |
| T2N R1W Baca Grant | 100% | other named | 5 | 98 / 113 / 133 | 16 / 35 / 100 | 86 / 113 / 133 |
These columns on the map · Plate 6 of the Driller’s Atlas.
The Driller’s Atlas · Plate 2 A cross-section nobody surveyed
Every permitted well within a few miles of the line, drawn from the ground to its drilled depth as the driller filed it. The bright part of each stroke is the perforated casing — where the well actually takes water — coloured by the aquifer named on the permit. Nobody arranged these; the aquifers arrange themselves.
The ground each well hangs from is a 1-km elevation model sampled at the point the permit was spotted, so the profile is real topography smoothed to about a kilometre — peaks are shaved, valleys filled a little — and the depths are the driller’s, measured down from that ground.
Hover or arrow through the strokes to read a well.
The same corridor as a table
| Miles from A | Wells drawn | Median depth (ft) | With a screen | Most-named aquifer | No depth filed | Ground, ft above sea level (median) |
|---|
Bins run from end A to end B of the line. “Most-named aquifer” is the family most often named on permits in the bin, with its count; permits naming no aquifer are the majority of the file and are not a family.
Drought
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-13 · verify at U.S. Drought Monitor ↗
Right now
This is the 64th-driest week 39 in 91 years of record at CRESTONE CREEK, NORTH NEAR CRESTONE (as of 2026-09-21; this week’s flow sits at the 70th percentileRank against the record: a river at its 5th percentile is lower than it was in 95 of the past 100 years on this same date. for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Saguache County is 98% in D3 extreme drought (2026-10-13). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 95% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.
Every year since 1936, week by week
Each thin row is a year at CRESTONE CREEK, NORTH NEAR CRESTONE; each cell is one week’s flow ranked against the same calendar week of every other year — warm means dry for the date, blue wet, so seasonality cancels and droughts appear as warm bands. Gaps are missing record, never a dry river. Click a year to reconstruct it on the Historical tab.
This year against its analogs
Over the 39 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2000 (mean gap 18.8 percentile points; next closest 1956 (21.9), 1996 (22.3)). The analog’s remainder is drawn as context — its ending is what happened to it, not a forecast for this year.
The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000
Mean share of area in each class across Saguache 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 2014 — 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 (256 calls touching this district) against the district’s rights index. Scoping is deliberately coarse — a call’s own district, or districts named in its comments — and this is administration’s RESPONSE, not a per-structure verdict (each dossier’s curtailment card does that, with stream miles). A deepening call can also reflect growing demand, not only shrinking supply.
This basin’s droughts, by its own record
| Drought | Span | Weeks | Trough percentile | Flows recovered | Water table back |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the 2020-22 drought | 2021-12-20 → 2022-10-03 | 41 | 16th (2022-03-07) | 10 weeks | not yet (15 of 26 wells still below) |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2020-07-06 → 2021-07-05 | 52 | 11th (2020-12-14) | 4 weeks | not yet (16 of 26 wells still below) |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2020-01-20 → 2020-06-22 | 22 | 25th (2020-02-24) | 58 weeks | not yet (14 of 26 wells still below) |
| the 2018 drought | 2018-04-02 → 2019-08-19 | 72 | 1st (2018-11-19) | 102 weeks | not yet (17 of 26 wells still below) |
| the 2012-13 drought | 2012-10-01 → 2013-10-28 | 56 | 6th (2013-04-22) | 0 weeks | 3 yr (27 wells, 12 still below) |
| the 2012-13 drought | 2010-11-08 → 2012-01-16 | 62 | 14th (2011-08-22) | 11 weeks | 7 yr (27 wells, 12 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 2009-12-21 → 2010-07-26 | 31 | 17th (2010-03-22) | 88 weeks | 5 yr (39 wells, 8 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 2009-02-16 → 2009-07-06 | 20 | 22nd (2009-04-13) | 2 weeks | 5 yr (39 wells, 8 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 2006-05-08 → 2006-10-09 | 22 | 23rd (2006-06-26) | 0 weeks | 9 yr (48 wells, 8 still below) |
| the 2002 drought | 2002-02-11 → 2003-08-11 | 78 | 3rd (2002-10-21) | 7 weeks | 14 yr (49 wells, 23 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 2000-10-09 → 2001-07-02 | 38 | 18th (2000-11-20) | 4 weeks | not yet (27 of 48 wells still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 1978-10-09 → 1979-04-30 | 29 | 18th (1979-01-01) | 4 weeks | 4 yr (15 wells, 4 still below) |
| the 1963-64 drought | 1963-07-08 → 1964-10-12 | 66 | 7th (1964-05-04) | 0 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 1962-10-22 → 1963-05-06 | 28 | 22nd (1962-11-12) | 75 weeks | — |
Detected mechanically: the 26-week smoothed percentile below the 30th for at least 20 weeks; recovered on regaining the 50th. The water-table clock compares each monitoring well against its own pre-drought median (the 3 years before onset) and dates the year the median well got back — the aquifer remembers longest, and “still below” is a finding, not a gap. The knobs are stated because the episode list depends on them — a different reasonable choice merges or splits episodes at the edges. Names are attached where an episode overlaps a drought Colorado already talks about.
What drought has cost here
Since 2018, federal crop insurance has paid $16,321 in drought-caused claims across Saguache county — 0.0% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2018 ($16,321).
USDA crop-insurance indemnities where the recorded cause of loss is drought, summed over the counties this district's gages sit in. Counties overlap water districts imperfectly, and insured-crop claims are a floor on drought damage, not a total. Source: USDA RMA cause-of-loss files.
When this basin claimed its water
Every bar is a year’s new appropriations (402 rights across 91 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is +0.11 — 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.
Legal
Who serves it, who protects it
Two registers the site fetches on their own schedules, read for this district. Neither is a DWR record; each links its own page and its agency.
Public water systems here
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-06 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗
3 systems touch this district (3 community systems reporting 2,879 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); none carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record.
| System | Serves | Source | Here |
|---|---|---|---|
| BACA GRANDE WSD | 2,006 | Groundwater | 100% of its area |
| KV HOA INC | 580 | Groundwater | 100% of its area |
| CRESTONE WS | 293 | Groundwater | 100% of its area |
Instream-flow rights held by the state
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-18 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗
14 reaches over 56.4 miles and 8 natural lake levels, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →
- Kerber Creek, 13.1 mi: 4 (8/1 - 11/15), 2.6 (11/16 - 3/31), 6.75 (4/1 - 7/31) cfs (appropriated 2012, 12CW0036) · dossier
- North Crestone Creek, 7.4 mi: 6.5 (4/15 - 8/31), 3.75 (9/1 - 11/30), 2 (12/1 - 4/14) cfs (appropriated 1994, 94CW0044) · dossier
- Willow Creek, 6.9 mi: 1 (10/1 - 4/14), 1.5 (4/15 - 9/30) cfs (appropriated 1989, 89CW0022) · dossier
- South Crestone Creek, 6.2 mi: 0.5 (10/1 - 4/14), 0.75 (4/15 - 9/30) cfs (appropriated 1989, 89CW0024) · dossier
- Cottonwood Creek, 5.9 mi: 1 (10/1 - 4/14), 2.5 (4/15 - 9/30) cfs (appropriated 1989, 89CW0023) · dossier
- San Isabel Creek, 5.7 mi: 1 (10/1 - 4/14), 3 (4/15 - 9/30) cfs (appropriated 1989, 89CW0016) · dossier
and 16 more on the district's instream-flow page.
What the water is like -- USGS sensors right now, where it has been sampled, the impaired-waters list, and how the tap water here stands with EPA -- is on the Water quality tab.
Designated groundwater basins are on their own page.
Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR water-right transactions ↗ Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR net amounts ↗
Decreed rights on this network run from 1866-04-01 to 2012-01-24. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 52% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 107 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: 1023 across 847 structure(s); 142 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 callA senior water right demanding its water, which requires everyone junior on that stream to stop diverting until it is satisfied., calls set, seniorityColorado shares water by date: the earlier the right, the stronger its claim when the river runs short. "First in time, first in right." 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.
- CHARLES D (2500534) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-19 (27+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- CHARLES D (2500534) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-29 (182+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- ALDER CR D (2500502) DWR↗ stopped 2024-09-03 (336+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- CLAYTON OLD CHANNEL DITC (2500557) DWR↗ stopped 2024-06-30 (26+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS [heuristic-partial]
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| COTTONWOOD CR D (2500550) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 51.9% / 0.0% |
| USFS QP55A1 (2500920) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 5.6% / 0.0% | 5.6% / 0.0% |
| HOFFMAN NEIDHARDT D (2500698) DWR↗ | 1868-03-15 | 54.7% / 0.0% | 6.1% / 0.0% |
| WILLOW CR D (2500684) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 51.9% / 0.0% |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 12 (2500516) DWR↗ | 1870-05-01 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 24.8% / 0.0% |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 19 (2500518) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 51.9% / 0.0% |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 10 (2500514) DWR↗ | 1870-07-01 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 11.7% / 0.0% |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 24 (2500520) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 11.7% / 0.0% |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 9 (2500513) DWR↗ | 1870-05-01 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 11.7% / 0.0% |
| WALES SHELLABARGER D 2 (2500678) DWR↗ | 1870-07-01 | 51.9% / 0.0% | 13.6% / 0.0% |
| USFS QP53H2 (2500915) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 5.6% / 0.0% | 5.6% / 0.0% |
| USFS QP53G6 (2500913) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 5.6% / 0.0% | 5.6% / 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 ~1969 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- BARSCH D 1 (2500528) DWR↗ (1881-04-15, 1.6 cfs decreed): last active 1961 — 64 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- HOFFMAN D 2 (2500604) DWR↗ (1875-05-01, 0.9 cfs decreed): last active 1961 — 64 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 19 (2500518) DWR↗ (1870-05-10, 39.8 cfs decreed): last active 1968 — 57 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1969) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- BRALEY D (2500530) DWR↗ (1886-05-09, 1.4 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
- JOHN DECAMP D B (2500610) DWR↗ (1884-06-01, 0.6 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 50 years idle
- KAUFMAN D (2500611) DWR↗ (1883-05-10, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1980 — 45 years idle
- DRISCOLL D (2500565) DWR↗ (1908-09-28, 1.8 cfs decreed): last active 1984 — 41 years idle
- CEDAR CR D (2500533) DWR↗ (1910-03-01, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1986 — 39 years idle
- NORTH,MIDDLE & TOP SPGS (2500743) DWR↗ (1871-05-01, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1989 — 36 years idle
- DRISCOLL D 2 (2500566) DWR↗ (1909-04-15, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1990 — 35 years idle
Compliance screens (107 advisory flags)
Screened 145 of 847 structures with rights (151 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.
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 9 (2500513) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 70.0 cfs (max 90.6) exceeds total decreed absolute 39.0 cfs across 10906 recorded day(s).
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 10 (2500514) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 41.0 cfs (max 41.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 39.4 cfs across 1308 recorded day(s).
- WALES SHELLABARGER D 2 (2500678) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 37.5 cfs (max 54.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 37.0 cfs across 23396 recorded day(s).
- SHELLABARGER HOME D 2 (2500651) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 28.0 cfs (max 28.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.0 cfs across 476 recorded day(s).
- STEEL D 2 (2500661) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 21.5 cfs (max 37.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 7.6 cfs across 28637 recorded day(s).
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 3 (2500507) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 20.0 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 4.0 cfs across 5374 recorded day(s).
- SAN ISABEL D (2500640) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 20.0 cfs (max 35.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 19.8 cfs across 5168 recorded day(s).
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 5 (2500509) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 18.0 cfs (max 29.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.8 cfs across 3798 recorded day(s).
- PETERSON D 1 (2500628) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 18.0 cfs (max 50.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 14.9 cfs across 15772 recorded day(s).
- BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 4 (2500508) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 15.0 cfs (max 22.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 7.0 cfs across 8360 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COTTONWOOD CR D (2500550) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 1 | 94.4 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP55A1 (2500920) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 1 | 90.2 | 0 | — |
| HOFFMAN NEIDHARDT D (2500698) DWR↗ | 1868-03-15 | 12 | 69.1 | 0 | — |
| WILLOW CR D (2500684) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 1 | 69.0 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 12 (2500516) DWR↗ | 1870-05-01 | 6 | 44.2 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 19 (2500518) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 1 | 39.8 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 10 (2500514) DWR↗ | 1870-07-01 | 2 | 39.4 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 9 (2500513) DWR↗ | 1870-05-01 | 2 | 39.0 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 24 (2500520) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 2 | 39.0 | 0 | — |
| WALES SHELLABARGER D 2 (2500678) DWR↗ | 1870-07-01 | 6 | 37.0 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP53H2 (2500915) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 1 | 30.6 | 0 | — |
| USFS QP53G6 (2500913) DWR↗ | 1902-04-11 | 1 | 28.8 | 0 | — |
| ARTHUR YOUNG D (2500505) DWR↗ | 1876-04-01 | 2 | 28.0 | 0 | — |
| JK HR COLE DR SPG WW D 1 (2500734) DWR↗ | 1952-08-20 | 1 | 25.7 | 0 | — |
| BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 25 (2500521) DWR↗ | 1870-05-10 | 1 | 24.0 | 0 | — |
Recent inventory & legal-document changes
- 2026-10-20 — call set: CHICAGO D (39764)
- 2026-10-20 — call set: GARCIA D 2 (39765)
- 2026-10-20 — call released: 39759
- 2026-10-20 — call released: 39692
- 2026-10-19 — call set: RAMONA D (39759)
- 2026-10-19 — call set: MEYER D 1 (39757)
- 2026-10-19 — call released: 39754
- 2026-10-19 — call released: 39755
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
2 applications in the 2026-08 resume for this basin's division — new rights, changes, augmentation plans — from the water clerk's statutory monthly notice (C.R.S. 37-92-302), the earliest public signal of a new claim. Filings are division-wide, not district-filtered: check the county column. Full resume PDF at the Judicial Branch →
Anyone affected may file a statement of opposition until 2026-10-31 (10 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 2 filings, with excerpts
| Case | What it asks | County | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
2026CW5
2505063 |
— | TRIBUTARIES IN SAGUACHE | Case No. 2026CW5: Applicant Kiana Creek Holdings II 3450 Big Bear Drive Sedalia, CO. 80135. jerry@kianacreekfarms.com (719) 588-0908. In the Rio Grande River or its Tributaries In Saguache County. APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION FOR AN ESTABLISHED BUT ERRONEOUSLY D… |
2026CW6
|
change of water right | IN ALAMOSA | Case No. 2026CW6: Applicant KJRC Investments, LLC Splashland, LLC c/o Aaron and Tiffanie Polkowske 14099 County Road U La Jara, CO. 81140 no phone number, no email. In Alamosa County. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT Decreed water right for which change i… |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUBD 2 JANRICH TRANSMOUNTAIN | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | 2027-04-30 | — | plan file |
| BACA GRANT NO. 4 IRRIGATION DITCH NO. 3 | 37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS | Approved | — | — | plan file |
Water quality
The water itself, in this district
Four registers, each on its own schedule: what USGS sensors read right now, where samples have been taken, which stretches the state lists as impaired, and how the tap water of the systems here stands with EPA. None is a DWR record; each links its own page.
Right now
Source Provisional telemetry · fetched 2026-10-22 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗
No USGS continuous water-quality sensor reports from inside this district. Statewide sensors →
Where water has been sampled
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗
The portal lists 1,500 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (San Luis 13010003; Saguache 13010004, 9% of the district), of which 26 reported a sample in the last 5 years on the state and tribal side (USGS activity is in the station count, not in that figure). Most active: Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment-WQCD (23), Colorado River Watch (2), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (1). Most-sampled groups: Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Nutrient, Inorganics, Minor, Non-metals. Every station as a file ↗
Results themselves are not fetched here; USGS samples added after March 2024 may not be in the portal's legacy profiles yet.
Drinking water
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗
3 community systems touch this district. None carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record. EPA sampled 0 of them for PFAS in 2023–25.
| System | Serves | EPA record | PFAS (UCMR 5) | Lead, latest 90th pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BACA GRANDE WSD | 2,006 | clean, last 12 quarters | not sampled | 0.0076 mg/L |
| KV HOA INC | 580 | 6 of 12 quarters with a violation | not sampled | 0.008 mg/L |
| CRESTONE WS | 293 | 11 of 12 quarters with a violation | not sampled | 0.001 mg/L |
EPA's record carries violations and lead/copper percentiles; nitrate and disinfection by-product results are not in it. UCMR 5 samples are monitoring, not compliance, and the 2024 PFOA/PFOS limits equal its reporting limit, so any detection of those two is at or above them.
Impaired waters
Source Register of another agency · verify at EPA ATTAINS ↗
The state's 303(d) impaired-waters list has not been joined to this basin's own watershed boundary yet, so nothing is shown rather than a guess; the basins with a join carry the full list here. Why the join is geometry, not a name match.
Call cascade
If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.
What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.
Pick a calling right
Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.
Or enter an administration number directly
DWR administration numbers encode appropriation and adjudication dates; lower is more senior.
This week's diagnostic
Loading…
System status
Loading…
Active river calls
Loading…
Hydrographs vs. historical envelope
Loading…
Anomaly flags
Loading…
Topology cross-check: 11 parent disagreements, 12 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 21 streams, 10 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| Spring Creek | the mainstem | Owl Creek |
| Cottonwood Creek | the mainstem | Kerber Creek |
| Little Kerber Creek | the mainstem | Kerber Creek |
| Raspberry Creek (AKA Spring Creek) | the mainstem | Rock Creek |
| Major Creek | the mainstem | Garner Creek |
| Spring Creek | the mainstem | no parent named |
| North Crestone Creek | the mainstem | Crestone Creek |
| Willow Creek | the mainstem | no parent named |
Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:
Crestone Creek (15 mi) · Rock Creek (11 mi) · Steel Canyon Creek (7 mi) · Peterson Creek (7 mi) · Alder Creek (5 mi) · Lone Tree Creek (5 mi) · Hayden Pass Creek (5 mi) · Silver Creek (5 mi)