Tomichi Creek

Division 4 · Water District 28

Draft - NLDI/CDSS verified

Bootstrap review report — d4_wd28_tomichi_creek

Generated 2026-08-13 22:40 UTC for Division 4 / Water District 28.

This is a review checklist, not a finished config. Everything below is a suggestion from live DWR data — confirm or correct each section in config.yaml before running this basin for real.

1. Stream-name patterns

Assumed mainstem pattern: TOMICHI CREEK (highest-count waterSource value). Candidates below by structure count — decide which are real tributaries worth their own centerline vs. noise, and add them to longitudinal.tributary_stream_patterns in priority order (more-specific names, e.g. "WEST FORK X", must precede substrings of themselves, e.g. "X").

waterSource	structure count
TOMICHI CREEK (assumed mainstem)	84
QUARTZ CREEK	42
COCHETOPA CREEK	42
RAZOR CREEK	25
HOT SPRINGS CREEK	19
WEST PASS CREEK	12
GOLD BASIN CREEK	12
LOS PINOS CREEK	11
NEEDLE CREEK	10
GOLD CREEK	8
MARSHALL CREEK	7
ARMSTRONG CREEK	6
ALDER CREEK	5
AGATE CREEK	3
BARRET CREEK	3
LONG BRANCH	3

2. Diversion / return classification

Auto-classified from structureType + name patterns: 306 diversions, 5 returns, 22 unclassified (neither pattern matched — these render as neither on the schematic unless added to return_flow_wdids/force_diversion_wdids or a type is added to the diversion/return type lists).

This layer needs the least manual work — it's the same heuristic the engine uses at runtime. Spot-check a sample rather than reviewing every row; if you have a water-year accounting spreadsheet for this basin, cross-reference it against the 'other' bucket specifically (that's where a real augmentation return with an unusual DWR structureType will hide).

2b. Cross-checked against decreed water rights (CDSS)

None flagged — no unclassified structure's decreed water right clearly disagreed with its current classification (checked up to the API-budget cap; see bootstrap.py's cross_check_classification for the cap).

3. Suspected nested tributaries

2 flag(s) confirmed connected by USGS NLDI — real surveyed stream-network topology, not a distance guess (see VERIFICATION-PLAN.md). This confirms the two candidates' channels really do merge (ruling out a coincidental-proximity false flag) but NOT auto-applied to tributary_parent_overrides — NLDI's overlap test can't reliably tell which side is upstream once two streams have already merged near DWR's own recorded structures, only that they connect. Confirm the direction (which one is the tributary, which is the parent) from local knowledge or the evidence below, then set it yourself.

pair	NLDI evidence
ALDER CREEK <-> QUARTZ CREEK	tributary's downstream NHD trace (comid 9772973) first overlaps QUARTZ CREEK's own downstream trace at index 1 (next-nearest candidate: ('MAINSTEM', 2))
BARRET CREEK <-> HOT SPRINGS CREEK	tributary's downstream NHD trace (comid 9773383) first overlaps HOT SPRINGS CREEK's own downstream trace at index 0 (next-nearest candidate: ('MAINSTEM', 1))

Still need a human decision — these tributary pairs are comparably close to EACH OTHER as to the mainstem — one may actually join the other rather than the mainstem directly (like Leavenworth Creek -> South Clear Creek in the Clear Creek basin). NLDI couldn't resolve these (no nearby flowline, or ambiguous/no downstream overlap within range) — if you know the real topology, set it in longitudinal.tributary_parent_overrides.

tributary	possible parent	dist to possible parent (mi)	dist to mainstem (mi)	NLDI result
LOS PINOS CREEK	COCHETOPA CREEK	0.36	15.4	NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/9773473/navigation/DM/flowlines?f=json&distance=40
WEST PASS CREEK	COCHETOPA CREEK	0.29	13.3	NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/9773681/navigation/DM/flowlines?f=json&distance=40
ARMSTRONG CREEK	QUARTZ CREEK	0.02	5.83	NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/9772763/navigation/DM/flowlines?f=json&distance=40
GOLD CREEK	QUARTZ CREEK	0.34	6.31	NLDI check failed: 429 Client Error: Too Many Requests for url: https://api.water.usgs.gov/nldi/linked-data/comid/position?f=json&coords=POINT%28-106.610908+38.571034%29

4. Gage placement risk

None — every gage with a resolvable position is within the placement cutoff.

10 more gage(s) pass but are within 2x the cutoff distance — worth a glance if the structure dataset changes later.

Next steps

Fill in tributary_stream_patterns from section 1.
Resolve section 3's flags (or confirm none apply).
Resolve section 4's at-risk gages.
Cross-reference return_flow_wdids/force_diversion_wdids against any local accounting source you have for this basin.
Review the rendered schematic for this district before relying on it.

Reconstruct conditions as of

Evolution of the network

Computed 2026-08-20 08:55 from 8 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. Statistical tests (Mann-Kendall trend, Pettitt changepoint) require at least 8 years spanning at least 10 years of record -- gages below that report no signal, not "no change."

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_20260707 (imported 2026-08-19) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.

Check	State	What was measured
gage freshness	stale	newest gage reading is 45 day(s) old (target 7)
diversion record	expected-lag	newest diversion record is 293 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	22% of schematic structures have data

Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 163,687 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 — 97.70% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 5 co-listed station(s) and 87,761 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.

8 gage(s) / 110,725 daily values (1916-10-01–2026-07-06); 394 structure(s) with diversion records; 1505 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.

Read this first: the measurement network itself evolved

This basin was not always measured the way it is today — the API-era record is dense and recent, the early record sparse. 6 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 †.

Decade	Gages with data (median yr)	Structures reporting (median yr)
1910s	1	0
1920s	1	0
1930s	3	0
1940s	4	0
1950s	2	0
1960s	3	0
1970s	1	210
1980s	2	202
1990s	3	228
2000s	6	238
2010s	6	269
2020s	6	264

Gage flow trend & changepoints

Every located gage with a period of record — dot size scales with the strength of its flow trend (|Sen slope| in %/decade, the same statistic as the table below), color with direction. An amber ring marks a detected Pettitt changepoint. Click a gage to chart its trend and shift.

Gage	Trend	Change / decade	Significance	Years	Changepoint
▸ RAZOR CREEK BELOW VOUGA RESERVOIR NEAR DOYLEVILLE RAZBVGCO	no clear trend	-63.6%	p=0.124	21	~2019
▸ COCHETOPA CREEK BELOW ROCK CREEK NEAR PARLIN, CO CHETOPCO	↓ decreasing	-30.0%	p=0.000	45	~2001
▸ TOMICHI CREEK AT SARGENTS, CO TOMSARCO	↓ decreasing	-3.1%	p=0.024	75	—

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

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 22% of 323 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 68% of year-to-year variance (almost certainly a basin-wide climate/snowpack driver).

TOMGUNCO doesn'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.

The basin's aquifer story, from 43 water-level measurements across 10 monitored well(s) (8 alluvial, 0 bedrock, rest unclassified) — plus 1 administered well(s) reporting metered pumping through diversion records. Observation wells and pumping wells are different populations and are never conflated. Click a well to chart its record.

Well map

Every monitored well with a location — hover for identity, click to chart its water-level record below. ● alluvial ● bedrock / confined (Denver Basin, High Plains, etc. — one-way, no human-timescale recharge) ● unclassified — marker size scales with the strength of the well's water-level trend (|Sen slope| in ft/decade — the same Mann-Kendall/Sen statistic as the trends table below); the smallest, faintest dots have too little record to test.

3D aquifer x-ray

Every aquifer unit as its own 3D head surface — alluvial water table on top, Denver Basin members (Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe, Laramie–Fox Hills) stacked beneath where measured — interpolated from measured water levels and animated through time. Units are never mixed; surfaces exist only inside each unit's well coverage (no extrapolation); thin epochs are suppressed with their reason shown. Vertical scale exaggerated for readability; z is head elevation in feet. Advisory — measured heads, not a calibrated model.

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.

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). 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?

Each reservoir drawn as a vessel: bubble size ∝ its record-high storage, fill level = 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 of its own record high otherwise (a wrong capacity would be worse than an honest record high, so only confident joins upgrade). Hover for numbers, click to chart its history below the map. A dashed teal ring marks reservoirs reporting live DWR telemetry — their fill reflects yesterday's storage, drawn as a dotted tail on charts and treated as provisional until the next verified HydroBase snapshot supersedes it. ● <25% ● 25–60% ● 60–90% ● >90%

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 reservoir to chart its full storage history.

Reservoir	Last recorded storage (AF)	As of
▸ MCDONOUGH RES FIRST ENLT (2803591)	920	2025-10-14
▸ UPPER DOME RESERVOIR (2803594)	606	2013-10-31
▸ NEEDLE CREEK RES (2803593)	275	2025-10-02
▸ MCDONOUGH RES NO 2 (2803592)	113	2017-10-01
▸ HOT SPRINGS RESERVOIR (2803590)	112	2025-10-21
▸ VOUGA RESERVOIR (2803595)	109	2021-10-31
▸ PETERSON RESERVOIR (2803674)	40	2025-07-12

Decrees, seniority, and administrative calls connected to this basin's flow network. Advisory reading aids on public DWR data — not administrative or legal conclusions. Rights on file: 1901 across 1505 structure(s); 98 structure(s) carry 0 court-case references.

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) (1927-11-04, 3.0 cfs decreed): last active 1972 — 53 years idle
PITKIN PIPELINE (2800870) (1934-08-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
QUARTZ CREEK DITCH (2800879) (1934-08-01, 5.0 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
TOMICHI DOME DITCH (2800907) (1901-08-01, 3.6 cfs decreed): last active 1973 — 52 years idle
DAVIS SPG NO 1 2 3 4 &5 (2800545) (1903-10-10, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
J M ELLIS NO 2 DITCH (2800596) (1913-06-04, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
J M ELLIS NO 3 DITCH (2800597) (1913-06-04, 4.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
DAVIS NO 1 DITCH (2800771) (1903-10-01, 2.1 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
ERNEST VOUGA PIPELINE (2800782) (1949-06-10, 0.2 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
FUNK PIPELINE NO 1 (2800795) (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): 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): Observed p99 daily rate 84.9 cfs (max 84.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 57.4 cfs across 9303 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
ADAMS NO 2 DITCH (2800501): 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): 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): Observed p99 daily rate 67.9 cfs (max 75.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 23.0 cfs across 6349 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
S DAVIDSON AND CO DITCH (2801572): 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): Observed p99 daily rate 65.5 cfs (max 91.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 20.0 cfs across 9136 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
MCCANNE 2 DITCH (2800632): Observed p99 daily rate 62.4 cfs (max 73.7) exceeds total decreed absolute 40.3 cfs across 11632 recorded day(s). Structure holds an Augmentation-use decree -- diversions above the direct-flow decree can be lawful under plan operations; interpret with care.
OWEN REDDEN DITCH (2800668): 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): 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)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Conditional?
ARCH IRRIGATING DITCH (2800510)	1887-12-31	9	147.2	—
MESA DITCH (2800651)	1877-05-31	7	88.0	—
SMITH FORD NO 2 DITCH (2800686)	1880-05-31	9	66.1	—
PIONEER DITCH (2800674)	1878-05-31	3	57.4	—
LOCKWOOD MUNDELL DITCH (2800624)	1879-11-15	2	56.6	—
S DAVIDSON AND CO DITCH (2801572)	1880-06-01	2	55.5	—
COCHETOPA MEADOWS DITCH (2800533)	1920-06-01	2	48.0	—
GOVERNMENT DITCH (2800568)	1874-12-22	8	46.0	—
PARLIN QUARTZ CREEK D (2800671)	1895-05-01	7	41.9	—
BIEBEL DITCHES NOS 1&2 (2800515)	1876-09-30	3	41.6	yes
OWEN REDDEN DITCH (2800668)	1879-11-30	3	41.5	—
MCCANNE 2 DITCH (2800632)	1890-05-01	12	40.3	yes
GULLETT TOMICHI IRG D (2800576)	1882-05-15	2	39.0	—
STEPHENSON DITCH (2800693)	1878-05-01	7	32.7	—
GOODRICH DITCH (2800566)	1881-05-31	2	32.0	—

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

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

Administration number

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