Hydrohistorian
Dolores River Basin
Who may take water from the Dolores River Basin, 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.
Dolores River Basin on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 63 · 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.
Schematic
Historical
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 2026-09-27 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 1 ranked gage are running at a median 254% of their own long-term norm for this window — 0 below a typical year, 1 at or above. Driest relative to its record: DOLORES RIVER NEAR GATEWAY, CO, ranking 12th lowest of 12 years.
How this comparison is made
Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-09-27, 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 2026-10-25 20:13 from 4 gage(s) with cached period-of-record data. The series is each gage's annual mean flow in cfsCubic feet per second, a rate of flow. One cfs running for a day is about 2 acre-feet. (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 4 gages with enough record shows a significant trend or a detected shift — which is itself the finding.
No gage shows a statistically significant trend or changepoint yet.
4 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. 1 gage(s) and 90 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1995. 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) |
|---|---|---|
| 1930s | 1 | 0 |
| 1940s | 2 | 0 |
| 1950s | 2 | 0 |
| 1970s | 0 | 18 |
| 1980s | 1 | 46 |
| 1990s | 0 | 57 |
| 2000s | 0 | 56 |
| 2010s | 0 | 108 |
| 2020s | 1 | 90 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 20% of 534 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 (–)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to (0 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: 3 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Reservoirs now has its own tab: 9 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1976, click-to-chart histories.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Not enough gages with a long enough common-coverage window yet to fingerprint shared patterns.
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_20260928 (imported 2026-10-04) for history, plus the CDSS REST API for current conditions.
| Check | State | What was measured |
|---|---|---|
| gage freshness | stale | newest gage reading is 28 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 360 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 20% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 158,849 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 — 100.00% day-level agreement with USGS's own published records for the same gages, across 3 co-listed station(s) and 11,776 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.
4 gage(s) / 15,428 daily values (1936-10-01–2026-09-27); 148 structure(s) with diversion records; 533 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 ↗
17 water-level measurements across 3 monitored well(s) — 3 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.
51% are constructed wells; 4% 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
212 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1958 to 2023; half of them had been issued by 2001, and the busiest year was 1985 with 20. The district’s 44 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 302 above counts every permit on file here; 46 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.
water-supply permits issued that year monitoring holes, when shown
The counts by year, as a table
| Year | Issued | Monitoring holes | Water-supply | Issued through that year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1958 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 1963 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 1969 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 1971 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 1974 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 11 |
| 1976 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 |
| 1978 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 14 |
| 1980 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 15 |
| 1981 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 17 |
| 1983 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 18 |
| 1985 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 38 |
| 1987 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 57 |
| 1991 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 59 |
| 1992 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 62 |
| 1993 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 66 |
| 1994 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 71 |
| 1995 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 74 |
| 1996 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 79 |
| 1997 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 88 |
| 1998 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 91 |
| 1999 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 97 |
| 2000 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 105 |
| 2001 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 122 |
| 2002 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 129 |
| 2003 | 21 | 2 | 19 | 150 |
| 2004 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 157 |
| 2005 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 160 |
| 2006 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 168 |
| 2007 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 172 |
| 2008 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 184 |
| 2009 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 188 |
| 2010 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 195 |
| 2011 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 200 |
| 2012 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 209 |
| 2013 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 216 |
| 2014 | 17 | 14 | 3 | 233 |
| 2015 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 236 |
| 2016 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 246 |
| 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 247 |
| 2018 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 249 |
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 251 |
| 2020 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 253 |
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 255 |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 256 |
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
4 PLSS townships here where at least 5 water-supply permits naming the same aquifer filed a depth (122 permits in all). Each column is one township, six miles square, on one scale to 300 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. 1 of these townships straddles a district line and is filed here because most of its permits are.
56
31
29
6 · 50% here
unnamed 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
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T51N R19W New Mexico PM | 100% | unnamed | 56 | 28 / 61 / 140 | 30 / 45 / 120 | 42 / 70 / 155 |
| T15S R102W 6th PM | 100% | unnamed | 31 | 55 / 115 / 252 | 44 / 95 / 170 | 80 / 115 / 262 |
| T15S R103W 6th PM | 100% | unnamed | 29 | 50 / 70 / 178 | 35 / 50 / 62 | 56 / 80 / 148 |
| T15S R101W 6th PM | 50% | unnamed | 6 | 53 / 124 / 268 | — | — |
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.
The ground each well hangs from is a 1-km elevation model sampled at the point the permit was spotted, so the profile is real topography smoothed to about a kilometre — peaks are shaved, valleys filled a little — and the depths are the driller’s, measured down from that ground.
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 ↗
9 reservoir(s) with 1,382 storage measurement(s), 1976–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-29 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 454 AF across 3 reservoir(s).
Why storage matters to the flow network
Storage change is real water the mass balance must credit — a losing reach beside a filling reservoir isn't losing water, it's banking it.
Reservoir map — how full is each vessel?
What “full” is measured against
Bubble size is proportional to a reservoir's record-high storage. Fill is its last recorded storage as a share of its surveyed capacity (USACE National Inventory of Dams) where a confident NID match exists — the tooltip names the matched dam — and as a share of its own record high otherwise. A wrong capacity would be worse than an honest record high, so only confident joins upgrade.
A dashed teal ring marks reservoirs reporting live DWR telemetry: their fill reflects yesterday's storage, is drawn as a dotted tail on charts, and is treated as provisional until the next verified HydroBase snapshot supersedes it.
A dashed red ring marks a dam under an active storage restriction from DWR's Dam Safety branch — the State Engineer has limited how much it may legally store, so a low fill can be an order, not a drought. Hazard class and inspection condition come from the same record, joined only where the dam carries this reservoir's WDID or a confident NID match — a wrong dam's restriction would be worse than none shown.
Basin storage, end of each water year
End-of-water-year totals; per-year reservoir counts shown because reporting coverage varies -- a total is only comparable to years with similar counts.
Largest reservoirs on record
Click a row to chart its full storage history, or open its dossier for rights, documents and dam-safety facts.
| Reservoir | Last recorded storage (AF) | As of | Full | Dam (DWR Dam Safety) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ CRAIG RES NO 2 (6303640) | 438 | 2025-10-20 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ BURG RESERVOIR (6303641) | 101 | 2023-05-08 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ ASPEN RESERVOIR (6303664) | 30 | 2012-05-07 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ CASTO RESERVOIR (6303643) | 16 | 2025-10-16 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ CASEMENT RESERVOIR (6303642) | 14 | 2023-07-24 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ BEAR POND (6303665) | 8 | 2012-05-07 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ PACE RESERVOIR (6303654) | 4 | 2011-05-23 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ CRAIG RES NO 1 (6303644) | 0 | 2025-10-29 | — | — | dossier → |
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 ↗
No active public water system's service area or address falls in this district in EPA's file. All providers →
Instream-flow rights held by the state
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-25 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗
17 reaches over 141.7 miles, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →
- Dolores River, 33.15 mi: 900 (4/15 - 6/14), 400 (6/15 - 7/15), 200 (7/16 - 8/14), 100 (8/15 - 3/15), 200 (3/16 - 4/14) cfs (appropriated 2014, 15CW3111) · dossier
- West Creek, 24.0 mi: 6 (1/1 - 12/31) cfs (appropriated 1977, 77W3296) · dossier
- South Fork Mesa Creek, 10.4 mi: 1.25 (3/1 - 3/31), 2 (4/1 - 5/31), 0.3 (6/1 - 2/29) cfs (appropriated 2002, 02CW0278) · dossier
- Roc Creek, 10.0 mi: 6.6 (3/15 - 6/14), 1.5 (6/15 - 3/14) cfs (appropriated 2002, 02CW0275) · dossier
- Blue Creek, 8.8 mi: 2.1 (3/15 - 4/14), 5.5 (4/15 - 5/14), 2.1 (5/15 - 6/14), 0.5 (6/15 - 3/14) cfs (appropriated 2002, 02CW0263) · dossier
- Ute Creek, 7.87 mi: 2 (4/1 - 6/15), 0.3 (6/16 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 2014, 14CW3099) · dossier
and 11 more on the district's instream-flow page.
What the water is like -- USGS sensors right now, where it has been sampled, the impaired-waters list, and how the tap water here stands with EPA -- is on the Water quality tab.
Designated groundwater basins are on their own page.
Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR water-right transactions ↗ Source Adjudicated record · verify at DWR net amounts ↗
Decreed rights on this network run from 1883-04-01 to 2018-10-26. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 0% of a median irrigation season and 0% in a dry one. 17 abandonment screens and 74 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: 678 across 533 structure(s); 77 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 callA senior water right demanding its water, which requires everyone junior on that stream to stop diverting until it is satisfied., calls set, seniorityColorado shares water by date: the earlier the right, the stronger its claim when the river runs short. "First in time, first in right." of the controlling call) are moving toward more administration, none the other way.
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.
- BARTHOLOMEW AND HATCH D (6300501) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-12 (9+ days) — call at WEST DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- CLIFF RANCH DITCH (6300518) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-12 (10+ days) — call at WEST DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- FOY & TOMLINSON DITCH (6300525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-10 (5+ days) — call at WEST DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- FIELDS DITCH (6300523) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-17 (31+ days) — call at MCMINN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- PINE MESA DITCH, HEADGATE NO. 1 (6300552) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-05 (37+ days) — call at B C D DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- BOOTH DITCH NO 2 (6300507) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-22 (98+ days) — call at MINNESOTA CANAL curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- SMITH DITCH NO 2 (6300561) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-13 (7+ days) — call at GROVE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- J R HATCH DITCH (6300532) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-08 (82+ days) — call at GROVE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- REN HATCH DITCH (6300554) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-08 (23+ days) — call at GROVE DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- BLUE CREEK DITCH (6300505) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-01 (122+ days) — call at MIDKIFF & ARNOLD D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- LONE OAK DITCH (6300539) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-01 (76+ days) — call at MIDKIFF & ARNOLD D curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- MESA CREEK DITCH (6300542) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-01 (122+ days) — call at MIDKIFF & ARNOLD D 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOLORES RIVER INSTREAM FLOW WATER RIGHT (6300831) DWR↗ | 2014-01-28 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| PINE MESA DITCH, HEADGATE NO. 1 (6300552) DWR↗ | 1891-04-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| SILZELL DITCH (6300558) DWR↗ | 1937-11-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| BURG DITCH NO 4 (6300512) DWR↗ | 1897-08-15 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| PATTERSON DITCH (6300550) DWR↗ | 1915-03-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| RED CROSS DITCH (6300553) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| BARTHOLOMEW AND HATCH D (6300501) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| NOLAN DITCH (6300547) DWR↗ | 1883-04-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| HARMS AND HAZEL DITCH (6300529) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| MESA CREEK DITCH (6300542) DWR↗ | 1909-05-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| WEST CREEK DITCH NO 1 (6300572) DWR↗ | 1900-11-27 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
| CLIFF RANCH DITCH (6300518) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 0.0% / 0.0% | 0.0% / 0.0% |
Abandonment radar (17 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 ~1995 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- BURG DITCH NO 3 (6300511) DWR↗ (1897-08-15, 2.1 cfs decreed): last active 1996 — 29 years idle
- BURG DITCH NO 4 (6300512) DWR↗ (1897-08-15, 12.5 cfs decreed): last active 1996 — 29 years idle
- CLIFF DWELLERS DITCH (6300517) DWR↗ (1916-12-04, 0.8 cfs decreed): last active 1999 — 26 years idle
- COTTONWOOD DITCH (6300519) DWR↗ (1900-02-01, 5.1 cfs decreed): last active 2001 — 24 years idle
- BURG RESERVOIR (6303641) DWR↗ (1901-08-15, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 2003 — 22 years idle
- RED CROSS DITCH (6300553) DWR↗ (1900-02-01, 10.1 cfs decreed): last active 2006 — 19 years idle
- WILLOW SPRINGS DITCH (6300645) DWR↗ (1968-08-06, 2.5 cfs decreed): last active 2009 — 16 years idle
- TRIANGLE BAR DITCH (6300564) DWR↗ (1885-04-25, 2.6 cfs decreed): last active 2010 — 15 years idle
- UNAWEEP CATTLE RANGE D 4 (6300567) DWR↗ (1883-04-15, 6.2 cfs decreed): last active 2011 — 14 years idle
- WINES DITCH NO. 1 (6300575) DWR↗ (1900-02-01, 5.8 cfs decreed): last active 2011 — 14 years idle
Compliance screens (74 advisory flags)
Screened 106 of 533 structures with rights (128 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.
- LOBA DITCH NO 5 (6300538) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 19.5 cfs (max 20.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.1 cfs across 5306 recorded day(s).
- UNAWEEP CATTLE RANGE D 2 (6300565) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 16.2 cfs (max 20.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 4.7 cfs across 10992 recorded day(s).
- WINES DITCH NO. 1 (6300575) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 12.0 cfs (max 16.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.8 cfs across 10030 recorded day(s).
- BURG DITCH NO 2 (6300510) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 9.5 cfs (max 10.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.9 cfs across 4020 recorded day(s).
- HIGHLINE DITCH (6300530) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 8.5 cfs (max 12.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 2.0 cfs across 5386 recorded day(s).
- UNAWEEP CATTLE RANGE D 3 (6300566) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 7.4 cfs (max 9.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 3.5 cfs across 6062 recorded day(s).
- BOOTH DITCH NO 1 (6300506) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 7.0 cfs (max 12.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 6.3 cfs across 13122 recorded day(s).
- IDLEWILD HIGHLINE D NO 2 (6300531) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 6.9 cfs (max 6.9) exceeds total decreed absolute 4.4 cfs across 2064 recorded day(s).
- PANSY HIGHLINE DITCH (6300549) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 6.5 cfs (max 6.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 1.4 cfs across 2128 recorded day(s).
- HARMS DITCH (6300528) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 6.2 cfs (max 7.8) exceeds total decreed absolute 5.1 cfs across 9694 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOLORES RIVER INSTREAM FLOW WATER RIGHT (6300831) DWR↗ | 2014-01-28 | 1 | 900.0 | 0 | — |
| PINE MESA DITCH, HEADGATE NO. 1 (6300552) DWR↗ | 1891-04-01 | 2 | 17.2 | 0 | — |
| SILZELL DITCH (6300558) DWR↗ | 1937-11-01 | 2 | 12.7 | 0 | — |
| BURG DITCH NO 4 (6300512) DWR↗ | 1897-08-15 | 3 | 12.5 | 0 | — |
| PATTERSON DITCH (6300550) DWR↗ | 1915-03-01 | 3 | 11.1 | 0 | — |
| RED CROSS DITCH (6300553) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 7 | 10.1 | 0 | yes |
| BARTHOLOMEW AND HATCH D (6300501) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 7 | 9.3 | 0 | — |
| NOLAN DITCH (6300547) DWR↗ | 1883-04-01 | 3 | 8.0 | 0 | — |
| HARMS AND HAZEL DITCH (6300529) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 4 | 7.8 | 0 | — |
| MESA CREEK DITCH (6300542) DWR↗ | 1909-05-01 | 2 | 7.5 | 0 | — |
| WEST CREEK DITCH NO 1 (6300572) DWR↗ | 1900-11-27 | 4 | 7.2 | 0 | — |
| CLIFF RANCH DITCH (6300518) DWR↗ | 1900-02-01 | 7 | 7.2 | 0 | — |
| IDLEWILD HIGHLINE DITCH (6300597) DWR↗ | 1911-08-15 | 3 | 6.7 | 0 | — |
| ROC CREEK (6300625) DWR↗ | 2000-01-23 | 1 | 6.6 | 0 | — |
| BOOTH DITCH NO 1 (6300506) DWR↗ | 1895-07-13 | 3 | 6.3 | 0 | — |
Recent inventory & legal-document changes
- 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
- 2026-10-17 — call released: 39109
- 2026-10-17 — call released: 39305
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
5 applications in the 2026-09 resume for this basin's division — new rights, changes, augmentation plans — from the water clerk's statutory monthly notice (C.R.S. 37-92-302), the earliest public signal of a new claim. Filings are division-wide, not district-filtered: check the county column. Full resume PDF at the Judicial Branch →
Anyone affected may file a statement of opposition until 2026-11-30 (35 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 5 filings, with excerpts
| Case | What it asks | County | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW70
|
plan for augmentation | — | Case No. 03CW70 including diversion rate, metering, accounting, reporting, calculation of depletions, and replacement of out of priority depletions. Cumulative simultaneous diversions from the two wells will be limited to 0.133 cfs. The Applicant seeks to amen… |
26CW3047
5905614 |
change of water right, plan for augmentation | — | Case No. 26CW3047 (Ref No. 03CW70) APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT AND PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION. Name, address, and telephone number of Applicant: Riverland Lot Owners Association, c/o Toad Property Management, 318 Elk Avenue, Suite 10, Crested Butte, CO 81… |
26CW3048
|
reasonable diligence, make absolute | GUNNISON | Case No. 26CW3048 (Ref No. 20CW3030, 13CW3036, 05CW261, 96CW298) GUNNISON COUNTY. Slate River and/or East River. Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligence and to Make Conditional Water Rights Absolute in Part. Applicant: Whetstone Vista Association, Inc.… |
26CW3049
|
reasonable diligence | GUNNISON | Case No. 26CW3049 (Ref No. 20CW3026, 12CW151) APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE OF MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, L.L.C., IN GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. 1. Name, address, telephone number, and email address of Applicant: Mountain Coal Company, L.L.C. (the… |
26CW3050
|
change of water right | — | Case No. 26CW3050 (Ref No. 84CW118) Applicant: Fuzzy's Hideaway Trust c/o Louie Fesmire, PO Box 105, Guffey, CO 80820, 719-696-1556. Please direct all correspondence to Attorney for Applicant: LAW OF THE ROCKIES Kendall K. Burgemeister, Atty. Reg. #41593 525 N… |
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 2026-10-27 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗
No USGS continuous water-quality sensor reports from inside this district. Statewide sensors →
Where water has been sampled
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗
The portal lists 103 sampling stations in this district's watershed (Lower Dolores 14030004), of which 8 reported a sample in the last 5 years on the state and tribal side (USGS activity is in the station count, not in that figure). Most active: Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment-WQCD (8). Most-sampled groups: Physical, Biological, Counts, Inorganics, Major, Metals, Nutrient. Every station as a file ↗
Results themselves are not fetched here; USGS samples added after March 2024 may not be in the portal's legacy profiles yet.
Drinking water
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA SDWIS ↗
No community water system's service area or address falls in this district in EPA's file. All providers →
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
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: 5 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 21 streams, 16 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| John Brown Creek | the mainstem | Dolores River |
| Maverick Canyon | the mainstem | Dolores River |
| Mesa Creek | the mainstem | Dolores River |
| Granite Creek | the mainstem | no parent named |
| Dolores River | the mainstem | no parent named |
Page assembled 21:16 MDT · live figures refresh through the day.