Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DOWDY LAKE RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0303745 · 3 · SOUTH LONE PINE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:52 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 1899-05-15 — 228th most senior of the 2961 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: WOODS MEADOW CR DITCH 2 (1899-04-01). Immediately behind: TWIN LAKES (1899-05-15).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18032.0 | 1899-05-15 | 1904-12-09 | 348.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 20613.0 | 1906-06-09 | 1922-04-22 | 711.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA2031, 84CW0625, 05/03/1930, 84CW0631, CA1591.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2031 | 3 | 1930-05-03 | S |
84CW0625 | 1 | 1930-05-03 | S |
05/03/1930 | 1 | 1930-05-03 | S |
84CW0631 | 1 | 1922-04-22 | S |
CA1591 | 1 | 1904-12-09 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 285 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 433 AF — 152% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 22 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 78 | 92 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 285 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 205 | 47 | 12.0 |
| 2006 | 2 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 204 | 31 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 337 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 143 | 78 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 91 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 123 | 9 | 6.6 |
| 2009 | 208 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 109 | 84 | 6.7 |
| 2010 | 65 | 4th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 100 | 125 | 0.4 |
| 2011 | 327 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | — | 238 | 4.6 |
| 2013 | 263 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 75 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 440 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | — | 223 | 3.6 |
| 2015 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 3% of median | — | 31 | 0.2 |
| 2016 | 666 | 15th lowest of 15 · 234% of median | — | 305 | 2.9 |
| 2017 | 421 | 11th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | — | 245 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 450 | 14th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | — | 306 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 433 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | — | 274 | 2.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+24 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4134 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2021 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.