Tomichi Creek

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 5 ranked gages are running at a median 84% of their own long-term norm for this window — 4 below a typical year, 1 at or above. Driest relative to its record: TOMICHI CREEK AT GUNNISON, CO, ranking 13th lowest of 89 years.

Gage flow trend & changepoints

None of the 8 gages with enough record shows a significant trend or a detected shift — which is itself the finding.

Drought history, cost, and the four-century context moved to the Drought tab.

No gage shows a statistically significant trend or changepoint yet.

8 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. 5 gage(s) and 264 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1970. 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 †.

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 19% of 1375 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 (337 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: 10 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.

Reservoirs now has its own tab: 7 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1998, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 34-year window with full coverage (1993–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 90% of year-to-year variance (almost certainly a basin-wide climate/snowpack driver).

All gages in this window move with the shared pattern -- no localized outlier.

Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-09-27)

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.

• MONARCH RESERVOIR (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• SOUTH CROOKTON CANAL (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• WEDDLE (return): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• BRIDGE NO 40 DITCH (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• TOMICHI PG (return): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• COLE NO. 3 DITCH (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• COLE NO. 2 DITCH (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• COLE NO. 1 DITCH (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• MCCALISTER DITCH (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)
• SPRINGER POND (diversion): -0.1 cfs (1% of that reach's correction)

Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR groundwater wells ↗ Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR well permits ↗

43 water-level measurements across 10 monitored well(s) — 8 alluvial, 0 bedrock — plus 1 administered well(s) reporting metered pumping.

Well map

3D aquifer x-ray

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

Water-table trends

Of 0 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 0 declining, 0 rising.

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.

Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR structure records ↗

7 reservoir(s) with 3,129 storage measurement(s), 1998–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-21 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 1,347 AF across 4 reservoir(s).

Reservoir map — how full is each vessel?

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.

Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-21 · verify at NRCS report generator ↗ Source Our computation, scored against a reference · NRCS forecast, graded here against the gage record

Snow-water equivalent, WY2027

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 (1979–2026)

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 10 of the last 48 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.

The snow never came: 1981, 1989, 1990, 1991, 2002, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2026. The snow left early: 2006.

Computed by this site from 1 SNOTEL site’ full daily records (NRCS AWDB, back to 1979). 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 — Tomichi Ck at Sargents

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 3 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 07-31 — 25% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 2, probably not more than 8. Our own record at this gage shows 2 kAF actually delivered. 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 21 replayed seasons (23% typical miss unadjusted vs 26% adjusted), so none is shown — NRCS’s own forecast, unadjusted, is the best April benchmark available for this river. Why we test →

How good are these forecasts here? (2001–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 25 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 23%, with a low bias of 3%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 72% 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 (1993–2026)

Across 31 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 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 1.3). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 70% of a normal season, against 122% 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 — Cochetopa Ck bl Rock Ck nr Parlin

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 1 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 07-31 — 22% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 4. Our own record at this gage shows 0 kAF actually delivered. 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 4 kAF over 04-01 to 07-31. 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 3 kAF. The river delivered 2 kAF.

Computed by this site — not an NRCS number, and shown only because it earned it: replayed over 21 past seasons here (2002–2025), never seeing the year it predicts, the adjustment cut the typical April miss from 37% to 32%. 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 →

How good are these forecasts here? (2001–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 25 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 37%, with a high bias of 17%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 64% 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 (1982–2026)

Across 42 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 92% 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 78% of a normal season, against 128% 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 — Tomichi Ck at Gunnison

NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 2 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 07-31 — 7% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 1, probably not more than 9. Our own record at this gage shows 2 kAF actually delivered. 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 14 kAF over 04-01 to 07-31. 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 12 kAF. The river delivered 4 kAF.

Computed by this site — not an NRCS number, and shown only because it earned it: replayed over 29 past seasons here (1997–2025), never seeing the year it predicts, the adjustment cut the typical April miss from 31% to 28%. 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 →

How good are these forecasts here? (1995–2025)

Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 30 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 41%, with a high bias of 17%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 80% 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 (1979–2026)

Across 48 measured years, the season’s water has closely followed the April snowpack: a year opening April with 80% of median snow has typically gone on to deliver about 74% 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 1.9). In warm, early-melt years the river delivered a median of 62% of a normal season, against 116% 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.

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 10th-driest week 39 in 89 years of record at TOMICHI CREEK AT GUNNISON, CO (as of 2026-09-21; this week’s flow sits at the 11th 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, Gunnison County is 22% in D4 exceptional drought (2026-10-13). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 100% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.

Every year since 1937, week by week

Each thin row is a year at TOMICHI CREEK AT GUNNISON, 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.

This year against its analogs

Over the 38 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2002 (mean gap 10.3 percentile points; next closest 2018 (13.8), 1954 (14.5)). 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 Gunnison, Saguache counties — 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 2002 — 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 (53 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

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 Gunnison, Saguache counties — 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 (608 rights across 90 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.03 — 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.

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 ↗

4 systems touch this district (4 community systems reporting 10,602 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); none carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record.

Instream-flow rights held by the state

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-18 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗

50 reaches over 375.7 miles and 6 natural lake levels, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →

• Cochetopa Creek, 31.2 mi: 8.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1984, 84CW0375) · dossier
• Tomichi Creek, 25.2 mi: 18 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1980, 80CW0132) · dossier
• Hot Springs Creek, 14.3 mi: 1.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1984, 84CW0374) · dossier
• Razor Creek, 13.5 mi: 1.5 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1980, 80CW0117) · dossier
• Cochetopa Creek, 12.91 mi: 6.8 (5/1 - 11/15) cfs (appropriated 2010, 10CW0132) · dossier
• Cochetopa Creek, 12.1 mi: 4 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1982, 82CW0251) · dossier

and 50 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 1874-12-22 to 2025-01-27. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 9% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 288 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: 1901 across 1505 structure(s); 288 structure(s) carry 1 court-case references. Advisory reading aids on public DWR data — not administrative or legal conclusions.

Is the river getting harder to divert from?

Over 2003–2025, administration on this district has been tightening: 1 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.

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.

• CAIN BORSUM DITCH (2800520) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-17 (57+ days) — call at MCMINN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• DUBER DITCH (2800548) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-13 (62+ days) — call at MOODY DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• EAST KRUEGER DITCH (2800551) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-13 (62+ days) — call at MOODY DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CHITTENDEN DITCH (2800526) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-08-08 (80+ days) — call at MOODY DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• BRIDGE NO 40 DITCH (2800518) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-31 (82+ days) — call at CRAWFORD CLIPPER DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• EASTSIDE DITCH (2800552) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-29 (77+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• CLARK NO 1 DITCH (2800527) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-27 (86+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• COATS BROS DITCH (2800532) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-27 (61+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 93% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• COX AND MCCONNELL DITCH (2800536) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-27 (57+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 94% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• CUTJO DITCH (2800542) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-27 (91+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
• D A MCCONNELL DITCH (2800543) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-27 (86+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 85% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
• ELSEN COCHETOPA DITCH (2800553) DWR↗☆ stopped 2025-07-21 (85+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL 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.

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 ~1970 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

• WERNER DITCH (2800942) DWR↗☆ (1927-11-04, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1972 — 53 years idle
• PITKIN PIPELINE (2800870) DWR↗☆ (1934-08-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
• QUARTZ CREEK DITCH (2800879) DWR↗☆ (1934-08-01, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
• TOMICHI DOME DITCH (2800907) DWR↗☆ (1901-08-01, 3.6 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
• DAVIS SPG NO 1 2 3 4 &5 (2800545) DWR↗☆ (1903-10-10, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
• J M ELLIS NO 2 DITCH (2800596) DWR↗☆ (1913-06-04, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
• J M ELLIS NO 3 DITCH (2800597) DWR↗☆ (1913-06-04, 4.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
• DAVIS NO 1 DITCH (2800771) DWR↗☆ (1903-10-01, 2.1 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
• ERNEST VOUGA PIPELINE (2800782) DWR↗☆ (1949-06-10, 0.2 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
• FUNK PIPELINE NO 1 (2800795) DWR↗☆ (1959-07-18, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle

Compliance screens (288 advisory flags)

Screened 330 of 1505 structures with rights (349 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.

• ARCH IRRIGATING DITCH (2800510) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 166.2 cfs (max 210.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 147.2 cfs across 16641 recorded day(s).
• PIONEER DITCH (2800674) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 84.9 cfs (max 84.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 57.4 cfs across 9303 recorded day(s).
• ADAMS NO 2 DITCH (2800501) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 78.2 cfs (max 84.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 12.0 cfs across 8612 recorded day(s).
• S DAVIDSON&CO FDR D NO 1 (2800680) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 72.8 cfs (max 72.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 15.0 cfs across 8912 recorded day(s).
• PISEL CANALS NOS 1&2 D (2800869) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 67.9 cfs (max 75.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 23.0 cfs across 6349 recorded day(s).
• S DAVIDSON AND CO DITCH (2801572) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 67.9 cfs (max 67.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 55.5 cfs across 6002 recorded day(s).
• GOODWIN AND WRIGHT DITCH (2800567) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 65.5 cfs (max 91.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 20.0 cfs across 9136 recorded day(s).
• MCCANNE 2 DITCH (2800632) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 62.4 cfs (max 73.7) exceeds total decreed absolute 40.3 cfs across 11632 recorded day(s).
• OWEN REDDEN DITCH (2800668) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 62.0 cfs (max 65.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 41.5 cfs across 12020 recorded day(s).
• ADAMS NO 1 DITCH (2800500) DWR↗☆: Observed p99 daily rate 60.6 cfs (max 109.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 14.0 cfs across 10160 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Recent inventory & legal-document changes

• 2026-10-17 — call released: 38507
• 2026-10-17 — call released: 39401
• 2026-10-17 — call released: 39109
• 2026-10-17 — call released: 39305
• 2026-10-13 — call released: 39683
• 2026-10-07 — call set: GALLOWAY DITCH (39683)
• 2026-10-07 — call released: 39623
• 2026-10-01 — call set: GALLOWAY DITCH (39623)

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

5 applications in the 2026-09 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 2026-11-30 (40 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.

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.

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 ↗

1 USGS sensor reports temperature, conductance, dissolved oxygen or turbidity from inside this district; provisional readings, never merged into the verified record.

Where water has been sampled

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗

The portal lists 180 sampling stations in this district's watershed (Tomichi 14020003), of which 24 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 (11), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (7), Colorado River Watch (6). Most-sampled groups: Physical, Biological, Counts, Inorganics, Major, Metals, Nutrient. 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 ↗

4 community systems touch this district. None carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record. EPA sampled 1 of them for PFAS in 2023–25; 1 had PFOA or PFOS at or above the 2024 limit.

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.