Hydrohistorian
Tomichi Creek on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 28 · clicktap anything for its record
Snowpack — no snow on the ground at 1 SNOTEL site — normal for the date; the snow year begins in October and typically peaks around April 15. Runoff outlook — Tomichi Ck at Sargents: even odds of at least 3 kAF over 06-01 to 07-31 — 25% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Runoff outlook — Cochetopa Ck bl Rock Ck nr Parlin: even odds of at least 1 kAF over 06-01 to 07-31 — 22% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Runoff outlook — Tomichi Ck at Gunnison: even odds of at least 2 kAF over 06-01 to 07-31 — 7% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Full snow & runoff picture — charts, forecast history and how the forecasts have verified →
Sites, exceedance bands and sources
| SNOTEL site | Elev (ft) | SWE (in) | Median (in) | % of median | Typical peak |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porphyry Creek | 10790 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | April 15 (17.0 in) |
Tomichi Ck at Sargents — 06-01 to 07-31 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 12 |
Cochetopa Ck bl Rock Ck nr Parlin — 06-01 to 07-31 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
Tomichi Ck at Gunnison — 06-01 to 07-31 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 27 |
Snow-water equivalent and medians (1991–2020) from NRCS SNOTEL; seasonal volume forecasts from the NRCS National Water and Climate Center. Sites and forecast points are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — snowpack that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district. Toggle the Snow chip on the map above to see the sites.
Topology cross-check: 6 parent disagreements, 17 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 18 streams, 12 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| Armstrong Creek | the mainstem | Red Jacket Gulch |
| Gold Creek | the mainstem | Quartz Creek |
| Stubbs Gulch | the mainstem | Gold Basin Creek |
| Pauline Creek | the mainstem | Cochetopa Creek |
| Archuleta Creek | the mainstem | Cochetopa Creek |
| West Pass Creek | the mainstem | Cochetopa Creek |
Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:
Agate Creek (11 mi) · Chance Gulch (10 mi) · Long Branch (10 mi) · Canyon Creek (9 mi) · Needle Creek (8 mi) · Cabin Creek (8 mi) · Owens Creek (7 mi) · No Name Creek (7 mi)
Full diagnostic snapshot pending — this district's weekly-style report (system status, active calls, hydrographs, anomaly flags) is produced by the nightly rotation and appears here after its first run. The tabs above are live now.
Schematic
Historical
Evolution of the network
Trends
This year, in context
In the weeks around 2026-07-06 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 5 ranked gages are running at a median 10% of their own long-term norm for this window — 5 below a typical year, 0 at or above. Driest relative to its record: RAZOR CREEK BELOW VOUGA RESERVOIR NEAR DOYLEVILLE, ranking 1st lowest of 23 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 19:55 from 8 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.
None of the 8 gages with enough record shows a significant trend or a detected shift — which is itself the finding.
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.
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 †.
| 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 | 5 | 264 |
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 89% 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.
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 55 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 305 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 19% 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) / 105,146 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.
Groundwater
43 water-level measurements across 10 monitored well(s) — 8 alluvial, 0 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 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.
Reservoirs
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).
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) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ MCDONOUGH RES FIRST ENLT (2803591) | 920 | 2025-10-14 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ UPPER DOME RESERVOIR (2803594) | 606 | 2013-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ NEEDLE CREEK RES (2803593) | 275 | 2025-10-02 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ MCDONOUGH RES NO 2 (2803592) | 113 | 2017-10-01 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ HOT SPRINGS RESERVOIR (2803590) | 112 | 2025-10-21 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ VOUGA RESERVOIR (2803595) | 109 | 2021-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ PETERSON RESERVOIR (2803674) | 40 | 2025-07-12 | — | — | dossier → |
Snow and runoff
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porphyry Creek | 10790 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | April 15 (17.0 in) |
NRCS SNOTEL, daily. Sites are assigned to the district whose boundary contains them — the snow that feeds this district can also sit in a neighboring headwater district.
Two ways a snow year goes wrong (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. This year was one of the dry ones: the pack peaked at 60% of median.
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 1 kAF actually delivered (partial record: 36 of 61 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 1 |
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 (1993–2025)
Across 30 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 82% 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 1.4). 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 (partial record: 36 of 61 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →
| 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 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
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 (1982–2025)
Across 41 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 84% 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 75% of a normal season, against 124% 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 1 kAF actually delivered (partial record: 36 of 61 days). New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →
| 90% chance of at least | 70% chance of at least | 50% chance of at least | 30% chance of at least | 10% chance of at least | Normal | Observed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 27 | 1 |
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 (1979–2025)
Across 47 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 66% 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 60% of a normal season, against 113% 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.
Legal
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 10% 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 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 (23 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 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 2015 | 277 | 127 | 1885-08-11 |
| 2016 | 366 | 108 | 1890-11-17 |
| 2017 | 319 | 94 | 1888-01-23 |
| 2018 | 291 | 160 | 1882-06-01 |
| 2019 | 319 | 93 | 1888-01-25 |
| 2020 | 246 | 141 | 1881-12-17 |
| 2021 | 275 | 103 | 1883-05-05 |
| 2022 | 365 | 93 | 1884-11-01 |
| 2023 | 277 | 59 | 1898-10-15 |
| 2024 | 275 | 56 | 1883-06-01 |
| 2025 | 365 | 100 | 1884-11-01 |
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.
| Structure | Senior priority | Senior right: median / dry yr | Junior right: median / dry yr |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARCH IRRIGATING DITCH (2800510) DWR↗ | 1887-12-31 | 12.6% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| MESA DITCH (2800651) DWR↗ | 1877-05-31 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| SMITH FORD NO 2 DITCH (2800686) DWR↗ | 1880-05-31 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| PIONEER DITCH (2800674) DWR↗ | 1878-05-31 | 100.0% / 30.8% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| LOCKWOOD MUNDELL DITCH (2800624) DWR↗ | 1879-11-15 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| S DAVIDSON AND CO DITCH (2801572) DWR↗ | 1880-06-01 | 83.9% / 10.7% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| COCHETOPA MEADOWS DITCH (2800533) DWR↗ | 1920-06-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| GOVERNMENT DITCH (2800568) DWR↗ | 1874-12-22 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| PARLIN QUARTZ CREEK D (2800671) DWR↗ | 1895-05-01 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| BIEBEL DITCHES NOS 1&2 (2800515) DWR↗ | 1876-09-30 | 100.0% / 100.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| OWEN REDDEN DITCH (2800668) DWR↗ | 1879-11-30 | 94.8% / 30.8% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| MCCANNE 2 DITCH (2800632) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 8.4% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 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 ~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)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARCH IRRIGATING DITCH (2800510) DWR↗ | 1887-12-31 | 9 | 147.2 | 0 | — |
| MESA DITCH (2800651) DWR↗ | 1877-05-31 | 7 | 88.0 | 0 | — |
| SMITH FORD NO 2 DITCH (2800686) DWR↗ | 1880-05-31 | 9 | 66.1 | 0 | — |
| PIONEER DITCH (2800674) DWR↗ | 1878-05-31 | 3 | 57.4 | 0 | — |
| LOCKWOOD MUNDELL DITCH (2800624) DWR↗ | 1879-11-15 | 2 | 56.6 | 0 | — |
| S DAVIDSON AND CO DITCH (2801572) DWR↗ | 1880-06-01 | 2 | 55.5 | 0 | — |
| COCHETOPA MEADOWS DITCH (2800533) DWR↗ | 1920-06-01 | 2 | 48.0 | 0 | — |
| GOVERNMENT DITCH (2800568) DWR↗ | 1874-12-22 | 8 | 46.0 | 0 | — |
| PARLIN QUARTZ CREEK D (2800671) DWR↗ | 1895-05-01 | 7 | 41.9 | 0 | — |
| BIEBEL DITCHES NOS 1&2 (2800515) DWR↗ | 1876-09-30 | 3 | 41.6 | 0 | yes |
| OWEN REDDEN DITCH (2800668) DWR↗ | 1879-11-30 | 3 | 41.5 | 0 | — |
| MCCANNE 2 DITCH (2800632) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 12 | 40.3 | 0 | yes |
| GULLETT TOMICHI IRG D (2800576) DWR↗ | 1882-05-15 | 2 | 39.0 | 0 | — |
| STEPHENSON DITCH (2800693) DWR↗ | 1878-05-01 | 7 | 32.7 | 0 | — |
| GOODRICH DITCH (2800566) DWR↗ | 1881-05-31 | 2 | 32.0 | 0 | — |
No inventory or legal-document changes detected since the daily watch began.
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
7 applications in the 2026-07 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 2026-09-30 (30 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 7 filings, with excerpts
| Case | What it asks | County | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
2026CW3030
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute | DELTA | Case No. 2026CW3030 (Ref No. 19CW3044, 12CW89) DELTA COUNTY 1. Applicant: Daniel J. Thomas, 14976 Deer Run Rd. Delta, CO 81416-9171; (970) 209-1656 c/o Camp & Skarka, LLC, 415 Palmer St., Delta, CO 81416. APPLICATION TO MAKE ABSOLUTE IN PART, AND FOR FINDING O… |
25CW3085
|
new storage right | DELTA | Case No. 25CW3085. DELTA COUNTY. GUNNISON RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES. Columbine Family Ranch LLC, c/o Corona Water Law, 218 E. Valley Road #104 PMB 166, Carbondale, CO 91623, (970) 948 -6523, cc@craigcoronalaw.com. APPLICATION FOR WATER STORAGE RIGHTS. Reservoir… |
26CW18
|
make absolute | — | Case No. 26CW18 (Ref No. 20CW2) Applicant Stewart Sto rms 708 Agape Circle Rockwall TX, 75087 Application to make Absolute. Storms Pump - Section15 T15S R84W Easting 346460 Northing 4290042. Source: Spring Creek . Date of Appropriation: December 1, 1953. Amoun… |
26CW3031
|
plan for augmentation, new underground right | DELTA | Case No. 26CW3031, DELTA COUNTY, NORTH FORK OF THE GUNNISON AND GUNNISON RIVERS. Application for Conditional Underground Water Right, Approval of Plan for Augmentation and Conditional Exchange Project Right. Anastasia Suderman and Bryce Frazee, c/o Ryan Jarvis… |
26CW3033
|
— | — | Case No. 26CW 3033 (Ref No. CA 2710; 20CW3017) Name, Address, and Telephone Number of Applicant. JBARM, Inc. (JBARM), c/o Andrew Bowles, 200 W. Nationwide Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215; (614) 436 -2418. Please direct communications related to this applicatio… |
26CW3034
|
— | DELTA | Case No. 26CW3034 (Ref 91CW0007) Delta County - Gunnison River; Town of Cedaredge; c/o John R. Pierce, DUFFORD WALDECK, 744 Horizon Court, Suite 300, Grand Junction, CO 81506, (970) 248-5865; APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF WATER RIGHT (SURFACE); Name, addres… |
26CW3035
2801276 2801277 |
reasonable diligence | GUNNISON | Case No. 26CW3035 (Ref No. 19CW3011) GUNNISON COUNTY. Fossil Creek Mines LLC, c/o Joseph Harrington, 8400 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite 1500, Greenwood Village, 80111. Please address all correspondence to: Peter D. Nichols, Esq., Katherine Carter, Esq., Berg Hill … |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GUNNISON WEST GRAVEL OPERATION | 37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN | Approved | — | — | plan file |
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.