Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KEMBEL WELL 1-7013
Structure dossier · WDID 0107091 · 2 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:26 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 1884-04-07 — 59th 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: GUTHRIE WELL 1-0564 (1884-04-07). Immediately behind: MENG-GUTHRIE WELL 1-7175 (1884-04-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12516.0 | 1884-04-07 | 1895-11-21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 14185.0 | 1888-11-01 | 1895-11-21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 36734.0 | 1950-07-29 | 1972-12-31 | 3.06 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 55969.0 | 2003-03-28 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 3.342 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
03CW0222, W3174.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0222 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
W3174 | 3 | 1972-12-31 | O |
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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 34 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 7 AF — 21% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 13 years with a recorded volume.
| 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 | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 8 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 24% of median | 6 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 8 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 24% of median | 6 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 49 | 9th lowest of 13 · 144% of median | 21 | 2.7 |
| 2014 | 34 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 12 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 8 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 24% of median | 5 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 17 | 6th lowest of 13 · 50% of median | 9 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 68 | 11th lowest of 13 · 200% of median | 29 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 49 | 9th lowest of 13 · 144% of median | 20 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 389 | 13th lowest of 13 · 1144% of median | 64 | 5.4 |
| 2021 | 40 | 8th lowest of 13 · 118% of median | 26 | 2.4 |
| 2022 | 135 | 12th lowest of 13 · 397% of median | 52 | 2.7 |
| 2023 | 1 | 1st lowest of 13 · 3% of median | 2 | 0.5 |
| 2024 | 7 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 21% of median | 7 | 0.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 259 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 2011-2024 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.