Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRAY RES 3
Structure dossier · WDID 0303748 · 3 · BOXELDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 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 1904-11-14 — 254th 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: NORTH POUDRE RES 11 (1904-11-02). Immediately behind: GRAY RES 3A (1904-11-14).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20066.20041 | 1904-11-14 | 1922-04-22 | 111.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA2031.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2031 | 1 | 1922-04-22 | 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 97 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1997, came in at 1 AF — 1% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 121 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 120 | 90 | 7.3 |
| 1984 | 40 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 40 | 80 | 8.6 |
| 1985 | 97 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 95 | 155 | 1.8 |
| 1986 | 85 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 102 | 183 | 0.4 |
| 1987 | 121 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 18 | 205 | 1.0 |
| 1988 | 100 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 106 | 140 | 1.1 |
| 1989 | 107 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 106 | 134 | 1.2 |
| 1990 | 90 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 85 | 186 | 1.3 |
| 1991 | 80 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 80 | 247 | 0.7 |
| 1992 | 113 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 110 | 188 | 0.9 |
| 1993 | 83 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 90 | 165 | 1.2 |
| 1994 | 53 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 54 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 1995 | 106 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 109 | 154 | 1.5 |
| 1996 | 183 | 15th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 181 | 154 | 1.8 |
| 1997 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 9 | 32 | 0.0 |
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 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2794 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-1997 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.