Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EMPIRE RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0103816 · 3 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:45 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 1905-05-18 — 415th 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: EMPIRE DITCH (1905-05-18). Immediately behind: DANIELSON E STOCK 122653 (1905-07-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20226.0 | 1905-05-18 | 1914-01-15 | 37709.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRRECFIS | |
| 26302.20226 | 1905-05-18 | 1936-01-13 | 37709.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRRECFIS | 79A |
| 31423.29219 | 1929-12-31 | 1965-06-08 | 37709.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRRECFIS |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA16704, CA8492, CA2142.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA16704 | 1 | 1965-06-08 | S |
CA8492 | 1 | 1936-01-13 | 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 56,353 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 32,092 AF — 57% of that, and 1st 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 | 75,254 | 15th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 21,686 | 236 | 401.0 |
| 2011 | 62,863 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 21,533 | 224 | 340.0 |
| 2012 | 45,976 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 24,779 | 140 | 372.0 |
| 2013 | 65,862 | 14th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 25,249 | 143 | 441.0 |
| 2014 | 52,627 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 11,453 | 244 | 366.0 |
| 2015 | 56,353 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 9,668 | 231 | 429.0 |
| 2016 | 62,349 | 12th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 18,532 | 245 | 358.0 |
| 2017 | 57,874 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 13,065 | 258 | 360.0 |
| 2018 | 59,348 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 26,158 | 218 | 342.0 |
| 2019 | 51,146 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 17,353 | 236 | 309.0 |
| 2020 | 55,676 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 24,675 | 166 | 392.0 |
| 2021 | 62,140 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 27,358 | 202 | 352.0 |
| 2022 | 42,932 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 19,012 | 170 | 289.0 |
| 2023 | 46,409 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 1,244 | 339 | 378.0 |
| 2024 | 32,092 | 1st lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 1,289 | 305 | 221.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-1628 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8480 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 73% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.