Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TWIN LAKES
Structure dossier · WDID 0303754 · 3 · SOUTH LONE PINE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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 — 229th 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: DOWDY LAKE RES (1899-05-15). Immediately behind: WEBSTER WELL 1 (1899-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18032.0 | 1899-05-15 | 1904-12-09 | 39.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 20614.0 | 1906-06-10 | 1922-04-22 | 76.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 26409.25226 | 1919-01-25 | 1930-05-03 | 80.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2031, 05/03/1930, CA1591.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2031 | 3 | 1930-05-03 | S |
05/03/1930 | 1 | 1930-05-03 | 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 108 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 186 AF — 172% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 84 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 46 | 14 | 3.6 |
| 2008 | 47 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 53 | 40 | 2.9 |
| 2009 | 45 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 51 | 9 | 2.9 |
| 2010 | 21 | 1st lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 34 | 62 | 0.2 |
| 2011 | 108 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 134 | 3.3 |
| 2012 | 105 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 184 | 0.7 |
| 2013 | 167 | 14th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | — | 165 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 97 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 164 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 111 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 184 | 0.7 |
| 2016 | 119 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2017 | 110 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 186 | 0.8 |
| 2018 | 112 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 188 | 0.7 |
| 2019 | 90 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | — | 215 | 0.4 |
| 2020 | 131 | 13th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | — | 221 | 0.8 |
| 2022 | 186 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | — | 184 | 1.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+4 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.010).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3026 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1977-2022 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.