Trinchera Creek

Evolution of the network

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 12 ranked gages are running at a median 8% of their own long-term norm for this window — 11 below a typical year, 1 at or above. Driest relative to its record: TRINCHERA CREEK BELOW SMITH RESERVOIR, ranking 1st lowest of 92 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 19:53 from 16 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 16 gages with enough record, 2 are trending down and 1 up, and 1 carries a detected shift. The clearest is Trinchera Creek above Turner's Ranch, its annual mean flow changing -1.11 cfs per decade (-5.3% of its median annual flow) over 92 years (p=0.0024). The other 13 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
▸ Trinchera Creek above Turner's Ranch☆ TRITURCO	↓ decreasing	-1.11 cfs -5.3%	p=0.002	92	~1999
▸ Little Spring Creek at Medano Ranch near Mosca☆ LITSPGCO	↑ increasing	+0.07 cfs +4.6%	p=0.034	26	—
▸ Trinchera Creek above Mountain Home Reservoir☆ TRIMTNCO	↓ decreasing	-0.65 cfs -4.9%	p=0.044	87	—

13 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. 13 gage(s) and 33 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1991. 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)
1910s	1	0
1920s	4	0
1930s	5	0
1940s	5	0
1950s	5	44
1960s	5	42
1970s	5	38
1980s	5	48
1990s	8	64
2000s	10	38
2010s	11	30
2020s	12	32

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 13% of 627 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 (1177 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.

• TRINCHERA CREEK BELOW SMITH RESERVOIR: reach shifted from -21 cfs to +1 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.003, 73 yr) [mountain crystalline canyon: minimal groundwater storage -- large or shifting unaccounted losses here are more consistent with data/measurement issues or unmodeled plumbing than with aquifer exchange]
• SANGRE DE CRISTO CREEK NEAR FORT GARLAND, CO.: reach shifted from -8 cfs to -26 cfs summer mean (more losing, p=0.000, 72 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [2 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -17678.2 ft (1991–2025, no_trend)]
• UTE CREEK NEAR FORT GARLAND, CO: reach shifted from +8 cfs to +24 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.008, 75 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 324 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 1951, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 94-year window with full coverage (1933–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 84% 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.

29,262 water-level measurements across 324 monitored well(s) — 174 alluvial, 54 bedrock — plus 3 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 92 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 55 declining, 7 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ CC03107214CAA☆	unknown	-11.12	45 yr	0.0
▸ CC03107209BAA☆	unknown	-8.33	45 yr	0.0
▸ CC03107210BCD☆	unknown	-8.0	34 yr	0.0061
▸ CC03107514AD☆	unknown	-7.34	16 yr	0.012
▸ NA03801234BDD1 EW-27U☆	alluvial	-6.38	23 yr	0.0002
▸ CC03107207DDA☆	unknown	-6.04	81 yr	0.0
▸ CC03007302BAD☆	alluvial	-5.27	34 yr	0.0
▸ NA03801234BDD2 EW-27C☆	alluvial	-4.52	23 yr	0.0001

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.

SANGRE DE CRISTO CREEK NEAR FORT GARLAND, CO.: 2 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -17678.2 ft (1991–2025, no_trend, p=0.3202)

UTE CREEK NEAR FORT GARLAND, CO: 1 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 10,637 storage measurement(s), 1951–2025. Basin storage as of 2024-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 3,634 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)
▸ MOUNTAIN HOME RESERVOIR (3503529) ☆	2,533	2024-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ SMITH RESERVOIR (3503530) ☆	1,027	2024-10-31	—	—	dossier →
▸ SAN LUIS LAKE (3503531) ☆	74	2024-10-31	—	—	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
Medano Pass	9650	0.0	0.0	—	March 9 (7.4 in)
Trinchera	10860	0.1	0.0	—	April 5 (11.2 in)
Ute Creek	10720	0.0	0.0	—	April 4 (12.4 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 (1990–2026)

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 9 of the last 37 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 43% of median.

The snow never came: 1990, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2018, 2025, 2026. The snow left early: 2020.

Computed by this site from 3 SNOTEL sites’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1990). 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 — Trinchera Ck ab Turners Ranch

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 1 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 21% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 2. Our own record at this gage shows 0 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 22 replayed seasons (18% typical miss unadjusted vs 21% 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
0	1	1	2	2	6	0*

How good are these forecasts here? (2004–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 22 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 18%, with a high bias of 14%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 86% of the time (a calibrated forecast would say 80%).

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

What April snow has meant for this river (1990–2025)

Across 36 measured years, the season’s water has loosely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 68% 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 0.7). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 37% of a normal season, against 93% 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 — Sangre de Cristo Ck

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 1 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 27% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 3. Our own record at this gage shows 0 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 1 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 0 kAF. The river has delivered 0 kAF so far (partial record).

Computed by this site — not an NRCS number, and shown only because it earned it: replayed over 22 past seasons here (2004–2025), never seeing the year it predicts, the adjustment cut the typical April miss from 87% to 64%. 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
0	1	1	2	3	4	0*

How good are these forecasts here? (2004–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 22 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 89%, with a high bias of 89%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 77% 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 (1990–2025)

Across 35 measured years, the season’s water has loosely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 47% 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 1.1). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 12% of a normal season, against 83% 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 — Ute Ck nr Fort Garland

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 2 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 09-30 — 25% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 4. Our own record at this gage shows 0 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 22 replayed seasons (15% typical miss unadjusted vs 21% 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
0	1	2	3	4	7	0*

How good are these forecasts here? (2004–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 22 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 16%, with a high bias of 10%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 95% 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 (1990–2025)

Across 36 measured years, the season’s water has loosely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 83% 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 0.6). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 44% of a normal season, against 102% 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 1850-12-31 to 1999-12-31. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 58% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 55 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: 1317 across 709 structure(s); 70 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.

• FRED ETTER D (3500518) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-10-20 (11+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 54% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• GARLAND D,HDGT 1 (3500521) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-08-17 (32+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA (3500570) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-30 (10+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• NEW NORTH D (3500555) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-05 (16+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 71% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• NEW SOUTH D (3500559) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-07-03 (25+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 57% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• EAST RIDGE D (3500517) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-06-22 (82+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 56% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• GARLAND D,HDGT 1 (3500521) DWR↗☆ stopped 2024-06-18 (20+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• FRED ETTER D (3500518) DWR↗☆ stopped 2023-11-01 (151+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 54% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• NEW NORTH D (3500555) DWR↗☆ stopped 2023-11-01 (164+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 71% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA (3500570) DWR↗☆ stopped 2023-11-01 (162+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• GARLAND D,HDGT 2 (3500523) DWR↗☆ stopped 2023-10-22 (5+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• GARLAND D,HDGT 1 (3500521) DWR↗☆ stopped 2023-10-16 (175+ days) — call at RIO GRANDE COMPACT - LOBATOS curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [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
TRINCHERA CANAL (3500579) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
TRINCHERA GARLAND CANAL (3500581) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
GARLAND D,HDGT 2 (3500523) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
GARLAND D,HDGT 1 (3500521) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
USFS QP55A6 (3500723) DWR↗☆	1905-06-12	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
INDIAN CREEK D (3500529) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
TRINCHERA HIGHLINE CANAL (3500582) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA (3500570) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
NEWTON D 2 (3500560) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 0.0%
USFS QP57A2 (3500726) DWR↗☆	1905-06-12	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
SAND CREEK MSF (3500684) DWR↗☆	1932-03-17	5.6% / 0.0%	5.6% / 0.0%
SANGRE DE CRISTO D (3500571) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	58.4% / 0.0%	6.3% / 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 ~1991 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

• LITTLE ALTA D (3500536) DWR↗☆ (1891-12-31, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1954 — 70 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1991) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
• HOFFMAN D (3500526) DWR↗☆ (1863-05-31, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1971 — 53 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1991) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
• OJITO CREEK D (3500563) DWR↗☆ (1864-05-01, 40.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 51 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1991) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
• LASTRE D (3500534) DWR↗☆ (1898-04-01, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1975 — 49 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1991) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
• NENNINGER D (3500549) DWR↗☆ (1863-05-31, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 1983 — 41 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1991) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
• W0572 WELL NO 12 (3505088) DWR↗☆ (1956-03-31, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1994 — 30 years idle
• SCOTT SPRING NO 1 (3500652) DWR↗☆ (1940-12-31, 0.6 cfs decreed): last active 1997 — 27 years idle
• HANK'S POND (3503533) DWR↗☆ (1952-06-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1997 — 27 years idle
• MEDANO SAND CR D (3500541) DWR↗☆ (1908-07-01, 40.0 cfs decreed): last active 1998 — 26 years idle
• SMITH/WAKASUGI D (3500701) DWR↗☆ (1945-12-31, 2.0 cfs decreed): last active 2000 — 24 years idle

Compliance screens (55 advisory flags)

Screened 97 of 709 structures with rights (104 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.

• SHADY RETREAT D (3500573) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 60.0 cfs (max 60.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 16.7 cfs across 5986 recorded day(s).
• MEYER D (3500543) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 50.0 cfs (max 50.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 26.7 cfs across 12577 recorded day(s).
• ZAPATO D 3 (3500592) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 50.0 cfs (max 80.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 16.0 cfs across 3050 recorded day(s).
• WALSEN D 1 (3500588) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 46.2 cfs (max 117.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.5 cfs across 38884 recorded day(s).
• MEDANO SAND CR D (3500541) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 45.0 cfs (max 45.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 40.0 cfs across 1198 recorded day(s).
• NOTLEY BALL OVERFLOW D (3500562) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 40.0 cfs (max 50.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 9.9 cfs across 6596 recorded day(s).
• SEYFRIED STRIBLING D (3500594) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 39.8 cfs (max 100.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 8.0 cfs across 16586 recorded day(s).
• NOTLEY BALL OVERFLOW D 1 (3500597) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 28.7 cfs (max 50.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.9 cfs across 3328 recorded day(s).
• GALLOWAY D (3500520) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 20.0 cfs (max 40.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.2 cfs across 5632 recorded day(s).
• NORTH ZAPATA CREEK PIPELINE (3500663) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 19.0 cfs (max 25.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 12.0 cfs across 3455 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Decreed abs (AF)	Conditional?
TRINCHERA CANAL (3500579) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	14	291.3	0	—
TRINCHERA GARLAND CANAL (3500581) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	14	174.9	0	—
GARLAND D,HDGT 2 (3500523) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	10	123.0	0	—
GARLAND D,HDGT 1 (3500521) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	8	104.7	0	—
USFS QP55A6 (3500723) DWR↗☆	1905-06-12	1	89.8	0	—
INDIAN CREEK D (3500529) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	14	75.0	0	—
TRINCHERA HIGHLINE CANAL (3500582) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	14	73.5	0	—
SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA (3500570) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	8	71.0	0	—
NEWTON D 2 (3500560) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	12	64.8	0	—
USFS QP57A2 (3500726) DWR↗☆	1905-06-12	1	64.4	0	—
SAND CREEK MSF (3500684) DWR↗☆	1932-03-17	1	58.9	0	—
SANGRE DE CRISTO D (3500571) DWR↗☆	1863-05-31	8	53.7	0	—
NORTH SWAMP D (3500561) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	10	53.0	0	—
SOUTH SWAMP D (3500576) DWR↗☆	1867-05-01	10	53.0	0	—
OJITO CREEK D 1 (3500564) DWR↗☆	1864-05-01	14	47.0	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
BLANCA WILDLIFE HABITAT - ALL MC CARREN WELLS	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	2025-10-31	—	plan file
TRINCHERA SUBD CONFINED WELL PLAN	37-92-308(5) PLANS LESS THAN 5 YEARS	Approved	2026-04-12	—	plan file
GREAT SAND DUNES LODGE, LLC	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Approved	—	—	plan file
FORBES PARK LAKE	37-92-308(4) PLAN PENDING COURT APPLICATION	Decreed	—	—	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.