Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PREWITT INLET CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 0100829 · 1 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:53 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1910-05-25 — 553rd most senior of the 7705 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: HERFORD IRR SYS DITCH (1910-05-20). Immediately behind: GILL WELL 48220 (1910-06-21).
Decreed rights (4)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22059.0 | 1910-05-25 | 1914-01-15 | 695.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 31423.29219 | 1929-12-31 | 1965-10-18 | 695.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 56247.55394 | 2001-08-30 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 50.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMFIRSTKAUGRCHWLD | |
| 56613.55995 | 2003-04-23 | 2005-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMFIRSTKAUGRCH |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
03CW0195, CA16704, CA2142.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0195 | 3 | 2005-12-31 | S |
CA16704 | 1 | 1965-10-18 | S |
CA2142 | 1 | 1914-01-15 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 30,934 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 21,626 AF — 70% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 27,201 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 207 | 432.0 |
| 2011 | 40,323 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 212 | 553.0 |
| 2012 | 15,429 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | — | 88 | 352.0 |
| 2013 | 63,485 | 15th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | — | 203 | 612.8 |
| 2014 | 26,840 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 149 | 556.0 |
| 2015 | 36,177 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | — | 179 | 560.0 |
| 2016 | 32,227 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 152 | 402.0 |
| 2017 | 33,431 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 136 | 565.0 |
| 2018 | 27,257 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 203 | 369.0 |
| 2019 | 29,671 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 143 | 444.0 |
| 2020 | 30,934 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 206 | 546.0 |
| 2021 | 50,680 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | — | 253 | 586.0 |
| 2022 | 18,490 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 113 | 321.0 |
| 2023 | 61,405 | 14th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | — | 277 | 476.0 |
| 2024 | 21,626 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | — | 305 | 430.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5309 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 86% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2024 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.