Hydrohistorian
Lower Yampa River
Who may take water from the Lower Yampa 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.
Lower Yampa River on the ground — the ditches, wells, reservoirs and gages of Water District 44 · 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.
The Yampa River is critically low for late September -- 11% of normal flow. No call that the record places on it is active right now. DWR's statements do not settle whether 8 more calls reach it.
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 2026-10-02 (the newest reading on file), flows at the 5 ranked gages are running at a median 54% of their own long-term norm for this window — 4 below a typical year, 1 at or above. Driest relative to its record: ELKHEAD CREEK ABOVE LONG GULCH, NEAR HAYDEN, CO, ranking 9th lowest of 32 years.
How this comparison is made
Each gage's mean flow over the 3 days either side of 2026-10-02, 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 2026-10-11 21:03 from 31 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.
Of the 31 gages with enough record, 0 are trending down and 3 up. The clearest is Milk Creek near Thornburgh, its annual mean flow changing +9.05 cfs per decade (+33.2% of its median annual flow) over 33 years (p=0.0025). 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
▸
Milk Creek near Thornburgh MILTHOCO |
↑ increasing | +9.05 cfs +33.2% | p=0.003 | 33 | — |
|
▸
Elkhead Creek near Clark ELKHEACO |
↑ increasing | +17.33 cfs +54.6% | p=0.029 | 14 | — |
|
▸
North Fork Elkhead Creek near Elkhead NOFELKCO |
↑ increasing | +6.44 cfs +38.6% | p=0.049 | 14 | — |
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. 6 gage(s) and 354 structure(s) report in 2026, but structure reporting only reached half its modern level around ~1979. 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 | 2 | 0 |
| 1910s | 4 | 0 |
| 1920s | 2 | 0 |
| 1930s | 1 | 76 |
| 1940s | 2 | 37 |
| 1950s | 4 | 97 |
| 1960s | 8 | 124 |
| 1970s | 8 | 186 |
| 1980s | 7 | 220 |
| 1990s | 6 | 240 |
| 2000s | 5 | 266 |
| 2010s | 5 | 302 |
| 2020s | 6 | 314 |
Mass-balance (network closure) trend
Structure divrec-history backfill coverage as of the last check: 5% of 2863 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 (1953–2026)
Mass-balance kinks computed for every summer month back to 1953 (733 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: 134 monitored well(s), water-table trends, stream corridors, and the advisory depletion screen.
Reservoirs now has its own tab: 78 reservoir(s), end-of-year storage back to 1900, click-to-chart histories.
Cross-gage pattern fingerprint
Over the 31-year window with full coverage (1996–2026), the dominant shared pattern across 3 gage(s) explains 97% 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 2026-10-02)
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.
- DEEP GULCH RES NO 2 (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- BOGENSCHUTZ DITCH (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- WHEELER #3 (return): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- LOUDY RESERVOIR (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- AIRLINE PUMPSITE #1 (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- WHEAT SEEP (return): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- RED ANGUS SPRING (return): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- SILVER SPG NO 4 (return): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- AIR LINE IRR D (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
- AIRLINE PUMPSITE AP #2 (diversion): -5.3 cfs (6% of that reach's correction)
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 9 day(s) old (target 7) |
| diversion record | expected-lag | newest diversion record is 346 day(s) old (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| structure coverage | sparse | 5% of schematic structures have data |
Independent check: PASS — 100.0000% agreement across 122,540 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.
31 gage(s) / 195,442 daily values (1904-01-01–2026-10-02); 624 structure(s) with diversion records; 3562 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 ↗
711 water-level measurements across 134 monitored well(s) — 60 alluvial, 1 bedrock — plus 6 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 1 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.
20% 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
7 located water-supply permits with an issue date, 1988 to 2024; half of them had been issued by 2022, and the busiest year was 2022 with 2. A permit is not a well, and the year is the date the paper was issued, not a drilling date. The 10 above counts every permit on file here; 3 of them have no usable location or no issue date and are not in this chart.
water-supply permits issued that year
The counts by year, as a table
| Year | Issued | Monitoring holes | Water-supply | Issued through that year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2022 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
Every district in the file on one scale · the whole file, one year at a time · Plate 4 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 ↗
78 reservoir(s) with 4,817 storage measurement(s), 1900–2026. Basin storage as of 2025-10-31 (the record's own end — reservoir records publish ~annually): 17,374 AF across 34 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) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ ELKHEAD CREEK RESERVOIR (4403902) | 16,421 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ ROBB PIT (4404436) | 807 | 2004-09-03 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ FREDRICKSON RES NO 2 (4403732) | 720 | 1982-05-12 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ RAW WATER RESERVOIR (4403912) | 553 | 2006-05-15 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ RALPH WHITE RES (4403724) | 308 | 1984-10-17 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ POOSE CK RES (4403701) | 291 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ FLAT TOP RES (4403925) | 100 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
| ▸ WILSON RESERVOIR (4403674) | 85 | 2025-10-31 | — | — | dossier → |
Snow and runoff
Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-13 · verify at NRCS report generator ↗ Source Our computation, scored against a reference · NRCS forecast, graded here against the gage record
Snow-water equivalent, WY2027
| SNOTEL site | Elev (ft) | SWE (in) | Median (in) | % of median | Typical peak |
|---|
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.
Runoff outlook — Elkhead Ck ab Long Gulch
NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 1 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 07-31 — 15% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 0, probably not more than 4. Our own record at this gage shows 1 kAF actually delivered (partial record: 45 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 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 1 |
How good are these forecasts here? (2011–2025)
Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 15 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 27%, with a high bias of 3%, 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 →
Runoff outlook — Yampa R nr Maybell
NRCS's final issue (2026-06-01) calls it even odds that at least 73 kAF arrives over 06-01 to 07-31 — 21% of a normal season; almost certainly at least 32, probably not more than 140. Our own record at this gage shows 72 kAF actually delivered. New forecasts begin in January. How to read these numbers →
We test a record-based adjustment of the April benchmark at every graded point. Here it did not beat NRCS over 61 replayed seasons (17% typical miss unadjusted vs 20% adjusted), so none is shown — NRCS’s own forecast, unadjusted, is the best April benchmark available for this river. Why we test →
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | 52 | 73 | 105 | 140 | 340 | 72 |
How good are these forecasts here? (1965–2025)
Grading every April issue against what the river then delivered, measured at this gage’s own record — 60 seasons: the median miss of the 50% forecast is 17%, with a low bias of 2%, and the observed volume landed inside the stated 10–90% band 75% 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 →
Drought
Source Our computation, no independent reference · computed here from the screened DWR record Source Independent agency measurement · fetched 2026-10-06 · verify at U.S. Drought Monitor ↗
Right now
This is the 12th-driest week 40 in 111 years of record at YAMPA RIVER NEAR MAYBELL, CO (as of 2026-09-28; this week’s flow sits at the 11th percentileRank against the record: a river at its 5th percentile is lower than it was in 95 of the past 100 years on this same date. for the date). On this week’s US Drought Monitor, Routt County is 26% in D4 exceptional drought (2026-10-06). The law agrees: the most senior active call leaves 0% of this district’s decreed flow rights junior to the calling right this week.
Every year since 1916, week by week
Each thin row is a year at YAMPA RIVER NEAR MAYBELL, 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 39 weeks recorded so far, 2026’s weekly trace most resembles 2002 (mean gap 11.4 percentile points; next closest 2021 (13.0), 1934 (13.9)). 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 Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt 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 (115 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| unnamed dry spell | 2026-05-04 → 2026-09-28 | 21 | 7th (2026-09-28) | not yet | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 2025-07-28 → 2026-04-20 | 38 | 19th (2025-10-06) | not yet | — |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2022-05-30 → 2023-06-26 | 56 | 21st (2023-04-03) | 7 weeks | — |
| the 2020-22 drought | 2020-10-26 → 2022-02-21 | 69 | 9th (2021-08-16) | 77 weeks | — |
| the 2018 drought | 2018-08-20 → 2019-07-01 | 45 | 14th (2018-12-03) | 2 weeks | — |
| the 2012-13 drought | 2012-08-06 → 2013-11-25 | 68 | 8th (2013-03-25) | 1 week | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 2010-03-08 → 2010-08-16 | 23 | 23rd (2010-05-10) | 12 weeks | — |
| the 2002 drought | 2001-09-03 → 2003-07-21 | 98 | 5th (2002-11-04) | 71 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 1994-08-15 → 1995-07-17 | 48 | 6th (1994-11-21) | 0 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 1989-07-03 → 1990-04-23 | 42 | 16th (1989-10-23) | 97 weeks | — |
| unnamed dry spell | 1988-11-21 → 1989-05-01 | 23 | 27th (1989-02-20) | 148 weeks | — |
| the 1981 drought | 1981-01-12 → 1982-02-15 | 57 | 11th (1981-05-11) | 3 weeks | — |
| the 1977 drought | 1977-01-17 → 1978-05-29 | 71 | 7th (1977-08-22) | 2 weeks | 4 yr (18 wells, 7 still below) |
| unnamed dry spell | 1975-01-13 → 1975-07-28 | 28 | 25th (1975-02-03) | 0 weeks | 3 yr (10 wells, 3 still below) |
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 1991, federal crop insurance has paid $500,121 in drought-caused claims across Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt counties — 1.2% of all insured crop losses there. The worst year was 2013 ($227,009).
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 (3,205 rights across 111 years of shared record), colored by that year’s wetness from the barcode above. Here the correlation is -0.01 — 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 ↗
1 system touch this district (1 community system reporting 8,930 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRAIG CITY OF | 8,930 | Surface water | 100% of its area |
Instream-flow rights held by the state
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-11 · verify at CWCB instream flow program ↗
24 reaches over 148.6 miles, held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board so that water stays in the stream. Every reach, with its schedule and case →
- Williams Fork, 16.0 mi: 30 (5/1 - 9/30), 14 (10/1 - 4/30) cfs (appropriated 1992, 92CW0076) · dossier
- Elkhead Creek, 15.83 mi: 6.4 (10/01 - 02/29), 10 (03/01 - 03/15), 24 (03/16 - 06/30), 10 (07/01 - 07/15), 2.5 (07/16 - 09/30) cfs (appropriated 2017, 17CW3031)
- Elkhead Creek, 10.94 mi: 4.4 (10/16 - 03/31), 14 (04/01 - 07/15), 7 (07/16 - 07/31), 3 (08/01 - 10/15) cfs (appropriated 2017, 17CW3031)
- East Fork Williams Fork, 9.5 mi: 15 (5/1 - 9/30), 8 (10/1 - 4/30) cfs (appropriated 1992, 92CW0079) · dossier
- North Fork Elkhead Creek, 9.39 mi: 1.8 (12/01 - 03/31), 5.4 (04/01 - 06/30), 1.2 (07/01 - 07/31), 0.57 (08/01 - 09/17), 1.4 (09/18 - 11/30) cfs (appropriated 2017, 17CW3029) · dossier
- Beaver Creek, 8.5 mi: 3 (4/1 - 7/31), 1.5 (8/1 - 11/15), 1 (11/16 - 2/29), 1.5 (3/1 - 3/31) cfs (appropriated 1992, 92CW0077) · dossier
and 18 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 1879-05-01 to 2022-06-01. Of the 20 structures with a yield estimate, the median one’s senior right was in priority 15% of a median irrigation season and 2% in a dry one. 25 abandonment screens and 267 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: 3979 across 3562 structure(s); 203 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 | 204 | 38 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2015 | 215 | 27 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2016 | 198 | 56 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2017 | 185 | 73 | 1883-06-30 |
| 2018 | 197 | 95 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2019 | 177 | 30 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2020 | 204 | 109 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2021 | 250 | 158 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2022 | 249 | 87 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2023 | 365 | 50 | 1904-01-02 |
| 2024 | 306 | 75 | 1882-04-01 |
| 2025 | 186 | 97 | 1882-04-01 |
Why diversions stopped — call-based explanations
Sustained diversion stops matched to senior administrative calls.
- YELLOW JACKET DITCH NO 2 (4400519) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-23 (38+ days) — call at KIWA DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- A Q DITCH 2 (4400525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-09-16 (45+ days) — call at BIRD DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- LILY PARK DITCH NO 1 (4400500) DWR↗ stopped 2025-08-11 (15+ days) — call at J P MORIN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- BEHRMAN DITCH 1 (4400529) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-25 (74+ days) — call at SQUARE S CONS D ALT PT curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- WISCONSIN DITCH (4400511) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-17 (106+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- A Q DITCH 2 (4400525) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-13 (21+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- B DAYTON DITCH (4400539) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-05 (30+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- 8 F DITCH NO 1 (4400521) DWR↗ stopped 2025-07-04 (36+ days) — call at HOME DITCH NO 2 curtailing 67% of its decreed rate [heuristic-partial]
- WOLFE DITCH (4400513) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-11 (69+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- BAKER COTTONWOOD D (4400542) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-06 (7+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- ALEX HERON NO 1 DITCH (4400531) DWR↗ stopped 2025-06-04 (6+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH curtailing 100% of its decreed rate [heuristic-strong]
- A Q DITCH 1 (4400524) DWR↗ stopped 2025-05-14 (49+ days) — call at METZ & REIGAN DITCH 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAYBELL CANAL (4400694) DWR↗ | 1899-10-02 | 15.0% / 2.3% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| DEEP CUT IRRIGATING DITCH (4400589) DWR↗ | 1884-05-13 | 23.8% / 7.5% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| JUNIPER MOUNTAIN TUNNEL AND IRRIGATION D (4400675) DWR↗ | 1890-04-02 | 15.4% / 2.3% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| MARTIN CK DITCH (4400692) DWR↗ | 1900-05-30 | 15.4% / 2.3% | 7.9% / 0.0% |
| D D & E DITCH (4400586) DWR↗ | 1888-03-01 | 17.3% / 5.6% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| CRAIG STATION DITCH AND PIPELINE NO1 (4400522) DWR↗ | 1895-06-25 | 15.4% / 2.3% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| LILY PARK DITCH NO 1 (4400500) DWR↗ | 1886-04-10 | 21.5% / 5.6% | 21.5% / 5.6% |
| WISCONSIN DITCH (4400511) DWR↗ | 1888-05-19 | 17.3% / 5.0% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| WILLIAMS FORK RIVER MSF (4401448) DWR↗ | 1992-09-16 | 7.5% / 0.0% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| NORVELL DITCH (4400724) DWR↗ | 1885-05-14 | 21.5% / 5.6% | 7.9% / 0.0% |
| SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS DITCH (4400779) DWR↗ | 1895-06-25 | 15.4% / 2.3% | 7.5% / 0.0% |
| MCKINLAY DITCH NO 2 (4400700) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 15.4% / 3.3% | 7.5% / 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 ~1979 — idleness that begins before then may be unreported use, not nonuse (flagged † below).
- PERRY LUCAS DITCH (4400732) DWR↗ (1903-06-03, 2.3 cfs decreed): last active 1938 — 87 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- DIAMOND DITCH (4400595) DWR↗ (1903-11-15, 0.5 cfs decreed): last active 1940 — 85 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- WILLOW CK DITCH (4400508) DWR↗ (1898-05-06, 0.3 cfs decreed): last active 1964 — 61 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- GOOD SPRING DITCH NO 1 (4400631) DWR↗ (1885-05-20, 0.5 cfs decreed): last active 1966 — 59 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- GOOD SPRINGS DITCH NO 2 (4400632) DWR↗ (1885-05-20, 1.0 cfs decreed): last active 1966 — 59 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- CRAIG IRR DITCH (4400580) DWR↗ (1890-03-31, 11.1 cfs decreed): last active 1978 — 47 years idle † predates modern reporting era — last recorded activity predates this basin's modern reporting era (~1979) -- early absence of record is weak evidence of nonuse
- FLOYD BUTTS WELL (4405002) DWR↗ (1954-09-27, 0.2 cfs decreed): last active 1980 — 45 years idle
- MILLER WELL (4405004) DWR↗ (1940-07-31, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1980 — 45 years idle
- SJOSTROM SPG NO 1 (4400881) DWR↗ (1977-08-01, 0.1 cfs decreed): last active 1981 — 44 years idle
- OSBORN BARN PUMP (4401055) DWR↗ (1944-06-07, 0.0 cfs decreed): last active 1981 — 44 years idle
Compliance screens (267 advisory flags)
Screened 403 of 3562 structures with rights (498 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.
- D D & E DITCH (4400586) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 60.1 cfs (max 64.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 49.3 cfs across 12394 recorded day(s).
- MILK CREEK DITCH (4400706) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 40.0 cfs (max 45.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 20.0 cfs across 12166 recorded day(s).
- WISCONSIN DITCH (4400511) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 32.8 cfs (max 35.5) exceeds total decreed absolute 32.0 cfs across 15023 recorded day(s).
- SMITH DITCH (4400763) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.1 cfs (max 30.1) exceeds total decreed absolute 21.0 cfs across 10590 recorded day(s).
- CRAIG IRR DITCH (4400580) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.0 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 11.1 cfs across 5156 recorded day(s).
- MCKINLAY DITCH NO 1 (4400699) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.0 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 8.3 cfs across 8842 recorded day(s).
- MCKINLAY DITCH NO 2 (4400700) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 30.0 cfs (max 46.4) exceeds total decreed absolute 25.7 cfs across 10130 recorded day(s).
- DEER CK & MORAPOS D (4400590) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 28.3 cfs (max 34.2) exceeds total decreed absolute 19.5 cfs across 16043 recorded day(s).
- EGRY MESA DITCH (4400607) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 27.0 cfs (max 40.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 22.9 cfs across 41448 recorded day(s).
- D D FERGUSON D NO 2 (4400587) DWR↗: Observed p99 daily rate 26.8 cfs (max 30.0) exceeds total decreed absolute 18.3 cfs across 11558 recorded day(s).
Seniority (top structures by decreed rate)
| Structure | Senior priority date | Rights | Decreed abs (cfs) | Decreed abs (AF) | Conditional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAYBELL CANAL (4400694) DWR↗ | 1899-10-02 | 3 | 149.0 | 0 | — |
| DEEP CUT IRRIGATING DITCH (4400589) DWR↗ | 1884-05-13 | 6 | 68.7 | 0 | — |
| JUNIPER MOUNTAIN TUNNEL AND IRRIGATION D (4400675) DWR↗ | 1890-04-02 | 5 | 67.0 | 0 | — |
| MARTIN CK DITCH (4400692) DWR↗ | 1900-05-30 | 3 | 62.0 | 0 | — |
| D D & E DITCH (4400586) DWR↗ | 1888-03-01 | 6 | 49.3 | 582 | — |
| CRAIG STATION DITCH AND PIPELINE NO1 (4400522) DWR↗ | 1895-06-25 | 25 | 44.9 | 0 | yes |
| LILY PARK DITCH NO 1 (4400500) DWR↗ | 1886-04-10 | 1 | 36.7 | 0 | — |
| WISCONSIN DITCH (4400511) DWR↗ | 1888-05-19 | 3 | 32.0 | 0 | — |
| NORVELL DITCH (4400724) DWR↗ | 1885-05-14 | 2 | 30.0 | 0 | — |
| WILLIAMS FORK RIVER MSF (4401448) DWR↗ | 1992-09-16 | 1 | 30.0 | 0 | — |
| SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS DITCH (4400779) DWR↗ | 1895-06-25 | 25 | 26.8 | 0 | — |
| MCKINLAY DITCH NO 2 (4400700) DWR↗ | 1890-05-01 | 4 | 25.7 | 0 | — |
| VAUGHN PUMP (4401122) DWR↗ | 1984-04-18 | 1 | 25.0 | 0 | — |
| ELKHEAD CREEK (LOWER) IS (4402557) DWR↗ | 2017-01-24 | 1 | 24.0 | 0 | — |
| HUSTON DITCH (4400657) DWR↗ | 1892-08-10 | 2 | 23.5 | 0 | — |
Recent inventory & legal-document changes
- 2026-10-07 — call set: NICKELL DITCH (39682)
- 2026-10-07 — call released: 39576
- 2026-09-29 — call set: ELK RIVER MSF-L (39597)
- 2026-09-26 — call set: BIRD DITCH (39576)
- 2026-09-26 — call released: 39406
- 2026-09-24 — call set: VAIL SAVAGE DITCH (39558)
- 2026-09-21 — call released: 39475
- 2026-09-21 — call released: 39416
Water-court filings this month (division-wide)
5 applications in the 2026-08 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 2026-10-31 (18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
2026CW10
|
— | ROUTT | 2026CW10 Routt County Application for Absolute Water Rights (Storage). Applicant: Wilton Earle 785 Valley View Drive Craig, CO 81625; 970-824-6258; rettae74@gmail.com.; Logan Earle 785 Valley View Drive Craig, CO 81625; 970-620-5288; earlelogan679@gmail.com St… |
2026CW11
|
— | RIO BLANCO | 2026CW11 Rio Blanco County Application for Simple Change in Surface Point of Diversion. Applicants: John and Diana Hartman, 2804 E Main Street, Rangely, CO 81648, 970-618-0088, dgrantelk@gmail.com Structure: Calvat Ditch. Original Decree: CA099. Case: 11/26/19… |
2026CW3009
|
reasonable diligence | — | 2026CW3009 ROUTT AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, Prima Ranches LLC, c/o David Harbaugh, 3575 E Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, CO 80209, (303) 478-8997. Please address all correspondence to: Geoffrey M. Williamson, Katherine Carter, Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP… |
2026CW3010
|
change of water right, plan for augmentation, new underground right | ROUTT | 2026CW3010 ROUTT COUNTY Water Division: 6. DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION SIX, STATE OF COLORADO, Routt County Combined Court, 1955 Shield Drive, Unit 200, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487. CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF SIDNEY PEAK RANCH OWNERS’ AS… |
2026CW3011
|
change of water right | RIO BLANCO | 2026CW3011 RIO BLANCO COUNTY – WHITE RIVER. Mahogany Ranch, LLC, c/o Kevin L. Patrick, and John M. Sittler, Patrick, Miller & Noto, P.C., 229 Midland Ave., Basalt, CO 81621. (970) 920-1030. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT. Summary of Application: Applica… |
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 2026-10-14 · verify at USGS current conditions ↗
1 USGS sensor reports temperature, conductance, dissolved oxygen or turbidity from inside this district; provisional readings, never merged into the verified record.
| Site | Temp °C | Cond µS/cm | DO mg/L | Turb FNU | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YAMPA RIVER NEAR MAYBELL, CO | 13.8 | 562 | 2026-10-14 02:15 |
Where water has been sampled
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-08 · verify at Water Quality Portal ↗
The portal lists 2,101 sampling stations in this district's watersheds (Lower Yampa 14050002, 53% of the district; Upper Yampa 14050001, 47% of the district), of which 105 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 (46), USGS Colorado Water Science Center (27), Colorado River Watch (18). Most-sampled groups: Physical, Nutrient, Inorganics, Major, Metals, Inorganics, Major, Non-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 ↗
1 community system touch this district. None carries an open health-based violation on EPA's record. EPA sampled 1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRAIG CITY OF | 8,930 | 3 of 12 quarters with a violation | none detected | 0.0 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
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…
Runoff outlook — Elkhead Ck ab Long Gulch: even odds of at least 1 kAF over 06-01 to 07-31 — 15% of a normal season, per NRCS, issued 2026-06-01 — the season’s final; new forecasts begin in January. Runoff outlook — Yampa R nr Maybell: even odds of at least 73 kAF over 06-01 to 07-31 — 21% 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
Elkhead Ck ab Long Gulch — 06-01 to 07-31 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
Yampa R nr Maybell — 06-01 to 07-31 volume, thousand acre-feet (chance the volume is AT LEAST this):
| 90% | 70% | 50% | 30% | 10% | Normal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | 52 | 73 | 105 | 140 | 340 |
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: 8 parent disagreements, 15 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 23 streams, 15 agree. Know this water? Tell us →
| Stream | This site routes it to | DWR routes it to |
|---|---|---|
| Dry Fork Little Bear Creek | the mainstem | Little Bear Creek |
| Blue Gravel Creek | the mainstem | Fortification Creek |
| Big Gulch | the mainstem | Lay Creek |
| Corral Gulch | the mainstem | Elkhead Creek |
| Rock Spring Gulch | the mainstem | Elkhead Creek |
| Good Spring Creek | the mainstem | Milk Creek |
| Sand Creek | the mainstem | East Fork Williams Fork |
| Morapos Creek | the mainstem | Williams Fork |
Sizable streams DWR maps here that this network does not carry:
Williams Fork (28 mi) · Morgan Creek (18 mi) · Maudlin Gulch (17 mi) · Temple Gulch (16 mi) · Sand Spring Gulch (13 mi) · Cedar Springs Draw (12 mi) · Jesse Gulch (11 mi) · Pine Ridge Gulch (7 mi)