Lower Uncompahgre River

Division 4 · Water District 41 · As of 2026-10-28 05:30 MDT · 9 days ago

Who may take water from the Lower Uncompahgre River, who is calling for it today, and how it is running, compiled from Colorado Division of Water Resources records. Click anything on the map for its record.

Live · machine-built

Lower Uncompahgre River on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 41 · clicktap anything for its record

The well-permit cells in view, as a table

Each row is one ~1-mile cell (0.02°) with the permits the file spots inside it, split into water-supply permits and monitoring holes (DWR’s two monitoring categories: drilled to look at the water, not to pump it). These are permits, not wells: a permit is a piece of paper, and the file does not say which were drilled. Spotting is the file’s own, about a mile at best, which is why the cells are no finer.

Lat	Lon	Water-supply permits	Monitoring holes

Browse this district’s ditches, gages, reservoirs, wells and springs as a list.

100th percentile for the week, week of 2026-10-19

1 call the record places on it, 9 unsettled

The Uncompahgre River is much above normal for mid October -- the 100th percentile for the week, its 1st-wettest such week in 89 years of record. 1 call stands against it right now; the most senior right calling dates to 1883. DWR's statements do not settle whether 9 more calls reach it.

Schematic

Historical

Reconstruct conditions as of

Evolution of the network

Trends

Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Our computation, no independent reference · no independent reference; see /methods

This year, in context

In the weeks around 2026-10-27 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 27 ranked gages are running at a median 81% of their own long-term norm for this window — 17 below a typical year, 10 at or above. Driest relative to its record: EAST CANAL TAIL AT DRAGON'S TEETH DROP, CO, ranking 1st lowest of 4 years.

How this comparison is made

Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-10-27, compared with the same window in every year of its own record — so a gage is only ever measured against itself, and gages with no record in the window are counted out rather than guessed.

Gage flow trend & changepoints

What counts as a trend here

Computed 2026-11-01 19:12 from 31 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 31 gages with enough record, 1 is trending down and 2 up, and 3 carry a detected shift. The clearest is South Canal near Montrose, its annual mean flow changing +57.26 cfs per decade (+12.3% of its median annual flow) over 37 years (p<0.0001). The other 28 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
▸ South Canal near Montrose SOUCANCO	↑ increasing	+57.26 cfs +12.3%	p<0.001	37	~2008
▸ Abc Lateral ABCLATCO	↓ decreasing	-15.03 cfs -28.1%	p<0.001	38	~2007
▸ Fairview Inlet Off the South Canal near Montrose FAIRVWCO	↑ increasing	+0.72 cfs +5.8%	p=0.004	25	~2016

28 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. 29 gage(s) and 61 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1950. 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)
1900s	0	1
1930s	1	2
1940s	1	0
1950s	1	57
1960s	1	70
1970s	1	74
1980s	1	72
1990s	4	68
2000s	5	52
2010s	15	63
2020s	23	61

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 6% of 1325 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 (1991–2026)

Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1991 (854 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.

FAIRVIEW INLET OFF THE SOUTH CANAL NEAR MONTROSE: reach shifted from -350 cfs to -95 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.011, 17 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [1 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -0.5 ft (2014–2024, decreasing)]
GARNET DITCH: reach shifted from -63 cfs to -18 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.000, 16 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [measurement-evolution caution: this shift co-moves with the growth of the gage/metering network (rho=-0.69) -- part of it may be unaccounted water becoming accounted, not hydrologic change] [3 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table -0.3 ft (2014–2024, no_trend)]
IRONSTONE CANAL NEAR OLATHE, CO: reach shifted from +124 cfs to +164 cfs summer mean (more gaining, p=0.010, 16 yr) [alluvial valley: real alluvial aquifer -- a decades-long shift toward losing is the classic signature of alluvial pumping and urbanization] [3 alluvial wells within 2 mi of the gage; pooled water table +1.2 ft (1976–2024, no_trend)]

Groundwater now has its own tab: 76 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 1950, click-to-chart histories.

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Over the 37-year window with full coverage (1990–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 50% 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 2026-10-27)

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.

ISOM SPRING AND PIPELINE NO1 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM POND NO1 (diversion): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM SPRING NO3 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM SPRING NO4 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM SPRING NO5 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM SPRING NO6 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM SPRING & PIPELINE NO8 (return): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM POND NO2 (diversion): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM POND NO3 (diversion): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
ISOM POND NO5 (diversion): +48.8 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)

Data provenance & quality

Where these numbers come from and how far they can be trusted. Grade B (4/6 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260928 (imported 2026-10-04) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.

Check	State	What was measured
gage freshness	current	newest gage reading is 5 day(s) old
diversion record	expected-lag	newest diversion record is 367 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears)
structure coverage	sparse	6% of schematic structures have data

Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 291,280 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 — 97.44% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 2 co-listed station(s) and 36,423 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.

31 gage(s) / 138,281 daily values (1938-10-01–2026-10-27); 133 structure(s) with diversion records; 1105 with decreed rights. Methodology has not yet had independent expert review — treat every figure as an advisory screen, not an administrative or legal conclusion.

Groundwater

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

8,080 water-level measurements across 76 monitored well(s) — 64 alluvial, 0 bedrock — plus 0 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 28 well(s) with enough record for a trend test: 6 declining, 2 rising.

Fastest-declining wells	Setting	ft / decade	Span	p
▸ LGRB-Poly 30	alluvial	-2.87	10 yr	0.0491
▸ NC04900936BA LGRB Poly 28	alluvial	-2.79	11 yr	0.0051
▸ LGRB-Poly 23	alluvial	-2.74	10 yr	0.0042
▸ NC05101035BD LGRB Poly 8	alluvial	-2.64	12 yr	0.0236
▸ LGRB-Poly 19	alluvial	-2.1	10 yr	0.02
▸ LGRB-Poly 6	alluvial	-1.44	10 yr	0.0491

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.

FAIRVIEW INLET OFF THE SOUTH CANAL NEAR MONTROSE: 1 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.5 ft (2014–2024, decreasing, p=0.0491)

GARNET DITCH: 3 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table -0.3 ft (2014–2024, no_trend, p=0.5915)

IRONSTONE CANAL NEAR OLATHE, CO: 3 alluvial well(s) nearby; pooled water table +1.2 ft (1976–2024, no_trend, p=0.0584)

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.

2,593 well permits on file — not decreed rights

48% household or domestic use

41 ft median depth, 1,789 wells reporting

55% are constructed wells; 0% tie to a decreed structure. A permit is permission to drill, not a water right; most here are exempt household wells. More in three things called “well”, or turn on the Well permits chip on the map above to see where they sit.

Permits issued here, by year

1,167 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1953 to 2026; half of them had been issued by 1995, and the busiest year was 2005 with 60. The district’s 696 monitoring holes are counted apart: they are drilled to look, not to pump. A permit is not a well, and the year is the date the paper was issued, not a drilling date. The 2,593 above counts every permit on file here; 730 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.

Show the monitoring holes too (696; the scale changes)

water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown

The counts by year, as a table

Located well permits with an issue date in this district, by issue year. Monitoring holes are the two DWR monitoring categories; water-supply is everything else.
Year	Issued	Monitoring holes	Water-supply	Issued through that year
1953	6	0	6	6
1954	22	0	22	28
1955	18	0	18	46
1956	12	0	12	58
1957	9	0	9	67
1958	1	0	1	68
1959	5	0	5	73
1960	2	0	2	75
1962	2	0	2	77
1963	4	0	4	81
1964	1	0	1	82
1965	2	0	2	84
1966	2	0	2	86
1967	4	0	4	90
1968	3	0	3	93
1969	3	0	3	96
1970	2	0	2	98
1971	9	0	9	107
1972	20	0	20	127
1973	18	0	18	145
1974	19	0	19	164
1975	8	0	8	172
1976	26	0	26	198
1977	36	0	36	234
1978	29	0	29	263
1979	42	0	42	305
1980	32	0	32	337
1981	31	0	31	368
1982	17	0	17	385
1983	19	1	18	404
1984	16	0	16	420
1985	14	0	14	434
1986	5	0	5	439
1987	12	0	12	451
1988	12	1	11	463
1989	7	0	7	470
1990	29	22	7	499
1991	30	19	11	529
1992	31	7	24	560
1993	43	12	31	603
1994	42	17	25	645
1995	33	8	25	678
1996	33	12	21	711
1997	47	8	39	758
1998	64	36	28	822
1999	43	9	34	865
2000	46	23	23	911
2001	63	36	27	974
2002	70	30	40	1,044
2003	64	19	45	1,108
2004	68	35	33	1,176
2005	112	52	60	1,288
2006	25	1	24	1,313
2007	26	3	23	1,339
2008	17	14	3	1,356
2009	10	2	8	1,366
2010	16	2	14	1,382
2011	19	3	16	1,401
2012	25	16	9	1,426
2013	26	24	2	1,452
2014	57	45	12	1,509
2015	39	30	9	1,548
2016	33	29	4	1,581
2017	56	41	15	1,637
2018	41	33	8	1,678
2019	40	30	10	1,718
2020	30	16	14	1,748
2021	31	19	12	1,779
2022	23	14	9	1,802
2023	19	14	5	1,821
2024	17	9	8	1,838
2025	14	3	11	1,852
2026	11	1	10	1,863

Every district in the file on one scale · the whole file, one year at a time · Plate 4 of the Driller’s Atlas.

What drillers reached, township by township

13 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (1,094 permits in all). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 800 ft below ground: a faint lane spans the 10th to 90th percentile of where the permits naming that aquifer stopped, the solid band their screens, the tick the median. This is the permit file’s view of the ground — the aquifer is the name the driller wrote, the band is where those holes ended — not a geologic map, and a township is as fine as it gets. Monitoring holes are left out. 6 of these townships straddle a district line and are filed here because most of their permits are.

T49N R9W New Mexico PM
247

T48N R10W New Mexico PM
228

T48N R9W New Mexico PM
188

T49N R10W New Mexico PM
145

T49N R8W New Mexico PM
90 · 69% here

T50N R10W New Mexico PM
50

T51N R11W New Mexico PM
47 · 62% here

T50N R11W New Mexico PM
28 · 81% here

T49N R7W New Mexico PM
19 · 72% here

T51N R10W New Mexico PM
19

T48N R8W New Mexico PM
15

T47N R7W New Mexico PM
13 · 50% here

T50N R9W New Mexico PM
5 · 71% here

unnamed other named faint = where the permits naming it stopped (10th–90th pct) · solid = their screens · tick = median · ft below ground as filed

Every township here, as a table

Water-supply permits by PLSS township and the aquifer named on them, where at least 5 filed a depth: percentiles of the depth drilled to and of the screen top and bottom (where at least 5 filed a screen), feet below ground as filed. The permit file’s view, not a geologic map.
Township	Share of its permits in this district	Aquifer named	Permits with a depth	Drilled depth p10 / p50 / p90, ft	Screen top p10 / p50 / p90, ft	Screen bottom p10 / p50 / p90, ft
T49N R9W New Mexico PM	99%	unnamed	246	12 / 45 / 204	21 / 35 / 70	38 / 50 / 160
T48N R10W New Mexico PM	99%	other named	11	57 / 90 / 284	45 / 140 / 201	71 / 236 / 289
T48N R10W New Mexico PM	99%	unnamed	217	35 / 200 / 452	49 / 186 / 490	85 / 300 / 682
T48N R9W New Mexico PM	100%	unnamed	186	14 / 54 / 320	20 / 122 / 340	45 / 200 / 383
T49N R10W New Mexico PM	100%	unnamed	142	6 / 70 / 339	19 / 137 / 382	34 / 180 / 509
T49N R8W New Mexico PM	69%	unnamed	86	62 / 140 / 404	31 / 108 / 324	86 / 158 / 423
T50N R10W New Mexico PM	99%	unnamed	50	5 / 22 / 408	16 / 20 / 113	24 / 40 / 278
T51N R11W New Mexico PM	62%	unnamed	47	6 / 35 / 199	15 / 21 / 160	25 / 41 / 302
T50N R11W New Mexico PM	81%	unnamed	28	5 / 72 / 261	15 / 50 / 204	35 / 160 / 255
T49N R7W New Mexico PM	72%	unnamed	19	97 / 150 / 312	39 / 90 / 216	97 / 138 / 273
T51N R10W New Mexico PM	97%	unnamed	19	23 / 60 / 346	—	—
T48N R8W New Mexico PM	100%	unnamed	15	9 / 33 / 189	8 / 20 / 124	23 / 33 / 160
T47N R7W New Mexico PM	50%	unnamed	11	65 / 147 / 365	69 / 130 / 298	126 / 250 / 332
T50N R9W New Mexico PM	71%	unnamed	5	5 / 40 / 720	—	—

These columns on the map · Plate 6 of the Driller’s Atlas.

The Driller’s Atlas · Plate 2 A cross-section nobody surveyed

Every permitted well within a few miles of the line, drawn from the ground to its drilled depth as the driller filed it. The bright part of each stroke is the perforated casing — where the well actually takes water — coloured by the aquifer named on the permit. Nobody arranged these; the aquifers arrange themselves.

Line Corridor

Hover or arrow through the strokes to read a well.

The same corridor as a table


Miles from A	Wells drawn	Median depth (ft)	With a screen	Most-named aquifer	No depth filed	Ground, ft above sea level (median)

Bins run from end A to end B of the line. “Most-named aquifer” is the family most often named on permits in the bin, with its count; permits naming no aquifer are the majority of the file and are not a family.

Reservoirs

Source DWR administrative record · verify at DWR structure records ↗

3 reservoir(s) with 58 storage measurement(s), 1950–2022.

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)
▸ CITIZENS RESERVOIR (4103651)	123	1956-09-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ MOCK RESERVOIR NO 1 (4103653)	40	1952-05-01	—	—	dossier →
▸ BUCKHORN RESERVOIR #2 (4103650)	0	2022-09-02	—	—	dossier →

Drought

Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-27 · verify at U.S. Drought Monitor ↗

Right now

This is the 89th-driest week 43 in 89 years of record at UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER AT DELTA, CO. (as of 2026-10-19; this week’s flow sits at the 100th percentile for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Delta County is 28% in D1 moderate drought (2026-10-27). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 84% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.

Every year since 1938, week by week

Each thin row is a year at UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER AT DELTA, 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 43 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2018 (mean gap 17.5 percentile points; next closest 2012 (17.6), 2021 (19.3)). The analog’s remainder is drawn as context — its ending is what happened to it, not a forecast for this year.

The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000

Mean share of area in each class across Delta, Montrose 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 (62 calls touching this district) against the district’s rights index. Scoping is deliberately coarse — a call’s own district, or districts named in its comments — and this is administration’s RESPONSE, not a per-structure verdict (each dossier’s curtailment card does that, with stream miles). A deepening call can also reflect growing demand, not only shrinking supply.

This basin’s droughts, by its own record

Drought	Span	Weeks	Trough percentile	Flows recovered	Water table back
the 2018 drought	2018-08-06 → 2019-02-04	26	15th (2018-10-01)	3 weeks	1 yr (30 wells, 6 still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2013-06-03 → 2013-11-25	25	19th (2013-07-22)	0 weeks	1 yr (15 wells, 3 still below)
the 2012-13 drought	2012-07-30 → 2013-02-11	28	15th (2012-10-08)	40 weeks	—
the 2002 drought	2003-06-23 → 2004-01-12	29	16th (2003-08-25)	1 week	—
the 2002 drought	2002-07-01 → 2003-03-10	36	6th (2002-09-23)	45 weeks	—
unnamed dry spell	1988-10-10 → 1990-09-17	101	14th (1990-04-23)	67 weeks	—
the 1981 drought	1980-12-08 → 1981-09-14	40	20th (1981-02-23)	12 weeks	—
the 1977 drought	1977-04-04 → 1978-06-19	63	12th (1977-10-31)	43 weeks	—
unnamed dry spell	1966-10-17 → 1967-09-11	47	18th (1966-11-28)	42 weeks	—
the 1963-64 drought	1963-05-13 → 1963-12-30	33	21st (1963-08-12)	32 weeks	—
unnamed dry spell	1959-05-11 → 1959-11-30	29	24th (1959-07-27)	95 weeks	—
the 1950s drought	1955-09-12 → 1957-04-15	83	12th (1956-12-03)	5 weeks	—
the 1950s drought	1954-05-10 → 1954-12-20	32	14th (1954-07-05)	126 weeks	—
the 1950s drought	1950-10-02 → 1952-06-16	89	12th (1951-05-21)	9 weeks	—

Detected mechanically: the 26-week smoothed percentile below the 30th for at least 20 weeks; recovered on regaining the 50th. The water-table clock compares each monitoring well against its own pre-drought median (the 3 years before onset) and dates the year the median well got back — the aquifer remembers longest, and “still below” is a finding, not a gap. The knobs are stated because the episode list depends on them — a different reasonable choice merges or splits episodes at the edges. Names are attached where an episode overlaps a drought Colorado already talks about.

What drought has cost here

Since 2011, federal crop insurance has paid $8,457 in drought-caused claims across Delta, Montrose counties — 0.0% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2018 ($5,315).

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 (831 rights across 89 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.02 — essentially no wet-dry pattern; here, law and settlement set the pace, not the weather. Across the state both behaviors exist: ephemeral southwest basins file after wet demonstrations, transbasin-source basins under drought — and the biggest statewide filing waves sat in the 1950s drought and after 2002, not in the wet 1980s–90s.

Appropriation dates are the CLAIMED initiation of a right, not the courthouse filing date; the record is survivor-biased (abandoned claims are absent, so failed dry-era scrambles are undercounted); and the big 1960s and 2000s spikes sit on legal events — the pre-1969-Act adjudication era and 2000s legislation — not on weather. A correlation here is a description, never a cause.

New to how a dry winter becomes a call on the river? Anatomy of a drought walks the chain in four minutes — snow to rivers to reservoirs to calls to the water table.

Legal

Who serves it, who protects it

Two registers the site fetches on their own schedules, read for this district. Neither is a DWR record; each links its own page and its agency.

Public water systems here

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-06 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗

8 systems touch this district (8 community systems reporting 39,872 people served, a figure that counts a wholesaler's customers twice); none carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record.

System	Serves	Source	Here
MONTROSE CITY OF	19,305	Purchased surface water	100% of its area
DELTA CITY OF	8,700	Purchased surface water	30% of its area
MENOKEN WD	4,500	Purchased surface water	100% of its area
CHIPETA WD	3,802	Purchased surface water	100% of its area
OLATHE TOWN OF	3,015	Purchased surface water	100% of its area
RIVER MEADOWS THE	490	Purchased surface water	100% of its area
SUNRISE TRAILER PARK	60	Groundwater	100% of its area
PROJECT 7 WA wholesaler	0	Surface water	100% of its area

Instream-flow rights held by the state

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-11-01 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗

4 reaches over 31.7 miles, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →

Dry Creek, 10.3 mi: 7.3 (4/1 - 6/14), 3 (6/15 - 7/31), 1.2 (8/1 - 2/29), 3 (3/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2005, 05CW0150) · dossier
East Fork Dry Creek, 10.0 mi: 3.6 (4/1 - 6/14), 1.6 (6/15 - 7/31), 0.6 (8/1 - 2/29), 1.6 (3/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2005, 05CW0151) · dossier
West Fork Dry Creek, 5.9 mi: 3.4 (4/1 - 6/14), 0.85 (6/15 - 7/31), 0.3 (8/1 - 2/29), 0.85 (3/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2005, 05CW0155) · dossier
Spring Creek, 5.5 mi: 5.3 (4/1 - 6/15), 2.6 (6/16 - 7/31), 0.9 (8/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2004, 04CW0163) · dossier

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 1877-05-01 to 2025-03-06. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 52% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 84 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: 1254 across 1105 structure(s); 161 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 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.

BUCKHORN DITCH (4100509) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-13 (40+ days) — call at MOODY DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
FREEMAN DITCH (4100525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-20 (14+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
J H ANDERSON D NO 1 (4100535) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-20 (79+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
CEDAR PARK DITCH (4100512) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-22 (31+ days) — call at MAVERICK DRAW DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
GLENDENING DITCH (4100529) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-08 (14+ days) — call at MIDKIFF & ARNOLD D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
CHAPARRAL D NO 2 (4100513) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-26 (43+ days) — call at TERROR DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
CHAPARRAL D NO 2 (4100513) DWR↗ stopped 2025-04-29 (12+ days) — call at SANDSTONE BLUFF DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
J. C. FREES PRIVATE DITCH (4100526) DWR↗ stopped 2025-04-01 (28+ days) — call at ROBERTS STUCKER DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
OURAY DITCH (4100549) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-31 (185+ days) — call at TRANSFER DITCH curtailing 64% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
FANSHER HORSEFLY NO 2 D (4100522) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-30 (181+ days) — call at TRANSFER DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
FREEMAN DITCH (4100525) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-29 (182+ days) — call at TRANSFER DITCH curtailing 50% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
GLENDENING DITCH (4100529) DWR↗ stopped 2024-10-27 (177+ days) — call at TRANSFER DITCH curtailing 57% 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
MONTROSE & DELTA CANAL (4100545) DWR↗	1881-11-01	69.2% / 8.9%	10.7% / 0.0%
IRONSTONE CANAL (4100534) DWR↗	1882-01-05	51.9% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
DRY CREEK FEEDER D (4100610) DWR↗	1887-02-28	10.7% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
SELIG CANAL (4100559) DWR↗	1882-01-27	51.9% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
GARNET DITCH (4100527) DWR↗	1883-06-18	30.8% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
UNCOMPAHGRE (LOUTSENHIZE (4101233) DWR↗	1882-02-23	51.9% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
SPRING CREEK VALLEY D (4100564) DWR↗	1883-06-13	30.8% / 0.0%	30.8% / 0.0%
IRONSTONE EXTENSION D (4100983) DWR↗	1885-02-28	10.7% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
EAST CANAL (4100520) DWR↗	1882-05-01	51.9% / 0.0%	10.7% / 0.0%
LOUTSENHIZER CANAL (4100537) DWR↗	1881-11-01	69.2% / 8.9%	10.7% / 0.0%
PURDY AND VICKERS DITCH (4100517) DWR↗	1882-03-02	51.9% / 0.0%	0.0% / 0.0%
HAIRPIN LTL D (4100532) DWR↗	1911-09-02	4.2% / 0.0%	4.2% / 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 ~1950 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).

E E FRASIER SPGS & SEPG (4100616) DWR↗ (1887-06-01, 1.5 cfs decreed): last active 1950 — 75 years idle
SPRING CREEK NO1 PL (4100711) DWR↗ (1976-09-07, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1954 — 71 years idle
SWEITZER DITCH (4100714) DWR↗ (1911-09-02, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1954 — 71 years idle
MONTROSE CITY DITCH (4100683) DWR↗ (1884-04-05, 10.0 cfs decreed): last active 1955 — 70 years idle
EAST FORK FDR PIPELINE (4100625) DWR↗ (1933-10-25, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1956 — 69 years idle
LABARR DITCH NO1 (4100664) DWR↗ (1976-04-29, 1.8 cfs decreed): last active 1969 — 56 years idle
CHAPARRAL DITCH (4100603) DWR↗ (1911-09-02, 0.4 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
MENKE NORTH DITCH ENLT (4100686) DWR↗ (1947-03-01, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
CITIZENS RESERVOIR (4103651) DWR↗ (1912-09-01, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle
MOCK RESERVOIR NO 1 (4103653) DWR↗ (1911-09-02, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1974 — 51 years idle

Compliance screens (84 advisory flags)

Screened 112 of 1105 structures with rights (118 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.

IRONSTONE CANAL (4100534) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 456.0 cfs (max 578.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 202.7 cfs across 48877 recorded day(s).
SELIG CANAL (4100559) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 260.0 cfs (max 377.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 121.9 cfs across 51459 recorded day(s).
EAST CANAL (4100520) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 189.0 cfs (max 1530.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 60.4 cfs across 45736 recorded day(s).
LOUTSENHIZER CANAL (4100537) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 188.0 cfs (max 741.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 46.4 cfs across 46945 recorded day(s).
IRONSTONE EXTENSION D (4100983) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 166.0 cfs (max 192.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 61.2 cfs across 2128 recorded day(s).
UNCOMPAHGRE CEDAR CR D (4100571) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 44.1 cfs (max 58.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 29.1 cfs across 9853 recorded day(s).
F. J. LATERAL (4100631) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 36.8 cfs (max 39.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 15.0 cfs across 2078 recorded day(s).
ROSS BROS DITCH (4100554) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 34.9 cfs (max 38.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 22.2 cfs across 26028 recorded day(s).
STARK VOLKMAN DITCH (4100566) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.3 cfs (max 55.3) exceeds total decreed absolute 20.1 cfs across 32500 recorded day(s).
CHIPETA BEAUDRY DITCH (4100515) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 23.6 cfs (max 32.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 20.8 cfs across 28093 recorded day(s).

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Structure	Senior priority date	Rights	Decreed abs (cfs)	Conditional?
MONTROSE & DELTA CANAL (4100545) DWR↗	1881-11-01	11	627.1	—
IRONSTONE CANAL (4100534) DWR↗	1882-01-05	7	202.7	—
DRY CREEK FEEDER D (4100610) DWR↗	1887-02-28	1	180.0	—
SELIG CANAL (4100559) DWR↗	1882-01-27	6	121.9	—
GARNET DITCH (4100527) DWR↗	1883-06-18	2	93.3	—
UNCOMPAHGRE (LOUTSENHIZE (4101233) DWR↗	1882-02-23	3	81.6	—
SPRING CREEK VALLEY D (4100564) DWR↗	1883-06-13	1	65.1	—
IRONSTONE EXTENSION D (4100983) DWR↗	1885-02-28	1	61.2	—
EAST CANAL (4100520) DWR↗	1882-05-01	4	60.4	—
LOUTSENHIZER CANAL (4100537) DWR↗	1881-11-01	4	46.4	—
PURDY AND VICKERS DITCH (4100517) DWR↗	1882-03-02	5	46.2	—
HAIRPIN LTL D (4100532) DWR↗	1911-09-02	1	45.0	—
SATISFACTION DITCH (4100558) DWR↗	1882-01-27	3	36.0	—
OURAY DITCH (4100549) DWR↗	1877-05-01	10	36.0	—
BALDY DITCH (4100501) DWR↗	1884-06-20	1	30.0	—

Recent inventory & legal-document changes

2026-10-31 — call released: 38722
2026-10-29 — call released: 39152
2026-10-22 — call released: 36912
2026-10-21 — call released: 38806
2026-10-21 — call released: 36838
2026-10-21 — call released: 39107
2026-10-17 — call released: 38507
2026-10-17 — call released: 39401

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

6 applications in the 2026-10 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 2026-12-31 (56 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 6 filings, with excerpts

Case	What it asks	County	Excerpt
`26CW23`	new surface right	—	Case No. 26CW23 Applicant Daren Hansen 300 SE Sandstone Court Cedaredge CO, 81413. Application for Absolute Surface Water Rights. Hansen Spring Collection Box - NE1/4SW1/4 Section 6 T13S R92W 6th. Easting 264692.922 Northing 431466.872. Source: Leroux Creek tr…
`26CW24`	make absolute	—	Case No. 26CW24 (Ref No. 20CW30) Applicant Jerald L. Sutton 689 25 ½ Rd, Grand Junction CO 81505. Application To Make Absolute in Whole or In Part. Sutton Glade Spring No. 2 - SE1/4SE1/4 Section 24 T13S R102W 6th. Easting 0175970.3 Northing 4312566.3. Source: …
`26CW25`	—	—	Case No. 26CW25 (Ref No. 01CW70) Applicants Barbara Bull 509 Jerstad Court, Moscow ID 83843, Deborah Dominguez 15776 Bull Mesa Rd, Cedaredge CO 81413, Ronald E. Jones and Holly S. Jones 15008 Happy Hollow Rd, Eckert CO 81418. Application for Correction for an …
`26CW3052`	new underground right	—	Case No. 26CW3052 Application for Conditional Underground Water Right. Applicant: Star Mountain Ranch Association, Inc., c/o John T. Howe, Hoskin Farina & Kampf, P.C., 200 Grand Avenue, Suite 400, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501; (970) 986-3400. Attorney for Ap…
`26CW3053`	reasonable diligence	—	Case No. 26CW3053 (Ref No. 20CW3038, 13CW3007, and 03CW278) APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE 1. Name, address, email, and telephone number of Applicant: RRE24 Cornerstone, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company c/o Rex McGuire 2600 N Ashton B…
`26CW3054` 4000999	change of water right	—	Case No. 26CW3054 1. Applicant: Zachary Jess Hotchkiss, 422 Riverside Dr., Hotchkiss, CO 81419; (970) 250-5542 c/o Camp & Skarka, LLC, 415 Palmer St., Delta, CO 81416. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT (ALTERNATE POINT OF DIVERSION). 2. Name of Structure: …

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
COLONA PIT M-94-005	37-90-137(11) GRAVEL PIT PLAN	Approved	—	—	plan file

Water quality

The water itself, in this district

Four registers, each on its own schedule: what USGS sensors read right now, where samples have been taken, which stretches the state lists as impaired, and how the tap water of the systems here stands with EPA. None is a DWR record; each links its own page.

Right now

Source Provisional telemetry · fetched 2026-11-04 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗

2 USGS sensors report temperature, conductance, dissolved oxygen or turbidity from inside this district; provisional readings, never merged into the verified record.

Site	Temp °C	Cond µS/cm	DO mg/L	Turb FNU	As of
LOUTSENHIZER ARROYO AT HWY 50 NEAR OLATHE CO	8.7	4220			2026-11-04 18:00
UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER AT DELTA, CO	8.7	520	9.6	72	2026-11-04 17:15

Where water has been sampled

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

The portal lists 1,637 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Uncompahgre 14020006; Lower Gunnison 14020005, 3% of the district), of which 138 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: USGS Colorado Water Science Center (47), Colorado River Watch (45), Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment-WQCD (40). Most-sampled groups: Inorganics, Major, Metals, Physical, Nutrient, Inorganics, Minor, Metals. Every station as a file ↗

Results themselves are not fetched here; USGS samples added after March 2024 may not be in the portal's legacy profiles yet.

Drinking water

Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗

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

System	Serves	EPA record	PFAS (UCMR 5)	Lead, latest 90th pct
MONTROSE CITY OF	19,305	4 of 12 quarters with a violation	none detected	—
DELTA CITY OF	8,700	6 of 12 quarters with a violation	1 detected, under the limits	—
MENOKEN WD	4,500	clean, last 12 quarters	none detected	—
CHIPETA WD	3,802	clean, last 12 quarters	1 detected, under the limits	—
OLATHE TOWN OF	3,015	4 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	—
RIVER MEADOWS THE	490	clean, last 12 quarters	not sampled	0.0037 mg/L
SUNRISE TRAILER PARK	60	clean, last 12 quarters	not sampled	0.0005 mg/L
PROJECT 7 WA	0	1 of 12 quarters with a violation	not sampled	0.0024 mg/L

EPA's record carries violations and lead/copper percentiles; nitrate and disinfection by-product results are not in it. UCMR 5 samples are monitoring, not compliance, and the 2024 PFOA/PFOS limits equal its reporting limit, so any detection of those two is at or above them.

Impaired waters

Source Register of another agency · verify at EPA ATTAINS ↗

The state's 303(d) impaired-waters list has not been joined to this basin's own watershed boundary yet, so nothing is shown rather than a guess; the basins with a join carry the full list here. Why the join is geometry, not a name match.

Call cascade

If a call were placed at a given seniority, which structures in this basin would be out of priority, and how much of their decreed rate would be curtailed? Computed from this basin's cached decrees.

What this does and doesn't model. Seniority arithmetic only: every right junior to the call is treated as curtailed. It does not model reach applicability — structures downstream of the calling point are not administered by it — and it applies no futile-call judgment. Read it as “who is junior to this date, and by how much,” not as a prediction of what the Division Engineer would actually order.

Pick a calling right

Real decrees from this basin, ordered by administration number — that is, by actual seniority. The years will look out of order, and that is correct: an administration number encodes the adjudication date as well as the appropriation date, so a right appropriated in 1970 can be administered ahead of one from 1950. A senior call curtails almost everything; a junior one curtails almost nothing.

Or enter an administration number directly

Administration number

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

This week's diagnostic

Loading…

System status

Loading…

Active river calls

Loading…

Hydrographs vs. historical envelope

Loading…

Anomaly flags

Loading…

Topology cross-check: 4 parent disagreements (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 16 streams, 12 agree. Know this water? Tell us →

Stream	This site routes it to	DWR routes it to
Coal Creek	the mainstem	Dry Creek
Montrose Arroyo	the mainstem	Cedar Creek
Dolores Creek	the mainstem	Happy Canyon Creek
Hairpin Creek	the mainstem	Cedar Creek

Something wrong on this page? Tell us →

Page assembled 20:17 MST · live figures refresh through the day.

Lower Uncompahgre River

Schematic

Historical

Evolution of the network

Trends

This year, in context

Gage flow trend & changepoints

How the measurement network itself changed

Mass-balance (network closure) trend

Reach gain/loss shifts (1991–2026)

Cross-gage pattern fingerprint

Structures most implicated by reconciliation (as of 2026-10-27)

Data provenance & quality

Groundwater

Well map

3D aquifer x-ray

Water-table trends

Stream corridors — the surface connection

Permits issued here, by year

What drillers reached, township by township

Reservoirs

Reservoir map — how full is each vessel?

Basin storage, end of each water year

Largest reservoirs on record

Drought

Right now

Every year since 1938, week by week

This year against its analogs

The Drought Monitor’s view since 2000

The law’s own drought gauge

This basin’s droughts, by its own record

What drought has cost here

When this basin claimed its water

Legal

Who serves it, who protects it

Public water systems here

Instream-flow rights held by the state

Is the river getting harder to divert from?

Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations

Right yield — how often could these rights actually divert?

Abandonment radar (25 screens)

Compliance screens (84 advisory flags)

Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)

Recent inventory & legal-document changes

Water-court filings this month (division-wide)

Active substitute water supply plans in this district

Water quality

The water itself, in this district

Right now

Where water has been sampled

Drinking water

Impaired waters

Call cascade

Pick a calling right

This week's diagnostic

System status

Active river calls

Hydrographs vs. historical envelope

Anomaly flags

Keep track of Colorado’s water?