Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SIEBRING RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0303803 · 3 · CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:44 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 1987-12-18 — 2611th 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: 83RD AVE RESERVOIR (1987-12-18). Immediately behind: MANNON WELL NO 1-152317 (1988-10-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50403.5039 | 1987-12-18 | 1988-12-31 | 1381.5 | 615.8 | A | IRRCOMINDRECFISAUGWLD | |
| 51864.51237 | 1990-04-13 | 1992-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGWLD | |
| 52732.0 | 1994-05-17 | 1994-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
10CW0139, 88CW0127, 14CW3056, 03CW0335.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0139 | 5 | 1994-12-31 | S |
88CW0127 | 2 | 1988-12-31 | S |
14CW3056 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
03CW0335 | 2 | 1988-12-31 | 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 341 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 106 AF — 31% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 837 | 13th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 42 | 51 | 12.9 |
| 2010 | 749 | 12th lowest of 15 · 220% of median | 1,020 | 21 | 24.6 |
| 2011 | 1,382 | 15th lowest of 15 · 405% of median | 410 | 83 | 15.1 |
| 2012 | 491 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 225 | 24 | 13.9 |
| 2014 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 488 | 5 | 1.6 |
| 2015 | 379 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 37 | 13.7 |
| 2016 | 208 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | — | 33 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 365 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 66 | 25 | 12.7 |
| 2018 | 865 | 14th lowest of 15 · 254% of median | 334 | 62 | 19.0 |
| 2019 | 302 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 15 | 19.0 |
| 2020 | 212 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 11 | 13 | 25.2 |
| 2021 | 237 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | — | 8 | 19.4 |
| 2022 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | — | 23 | 11.0 |
| 2023 | 341 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 315 | 20 | 15.0 |
| 2024 | 106 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 31% of median | — | 11 | 6.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-33 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 600 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 10% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2024 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.