Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CULVER RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0404159 · 3 · LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:56 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 1867-04-15 — 31st most senior of the 1296 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: PINEWOOD SPRINGS RESERVOIR (1867-04-15). Immediately behind: EHLER WELL 1 (1868-07-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6314.0 | 1867-04-15 | 1883-05-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STOAUG | |
| 9251.0 | 1875-04-30 | 1883-05-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STOAUG | |
| 11841.11687 | 1881-12-30 | 1907-03-13 | 148.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 14691.11658 | 1881-12-01 | 1916-06-29 | 148.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 45867.0 | 1975-07-31 | 1975-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
95CW0285, CA4862, CA4790, 79CW0331.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0285 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | O |
CA4862 | 1 | 1916-06-29 | S |
CA4790 | 1 | 1907-03-13 | S |
79CW0331 | 2 | 1883-05-28 | 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 92 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 89 AF — 97% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 6 | 4 | 1.4 |
| 2009 | 134 | 9th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | — | 16 | 6.0 |
| 2010 | 301 | 14th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | — | 22 | 12.1 |
| 2011 | 92 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 18 | 6.4 |
| 2012 | 88 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 28 | 4.8 |
| 2013 | 355 | 15th lowest of 15 · 386% of median | — | 20 | 15.5 |
| 2014 | 287 | 13th lowest of 15 · 312% of median | — | 16 | 13.8 |
| 2015 | 83 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 13 | 11.5 |
| 2017 | 145 | 11th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | — | 13 | 6.4 |
| 2018 | 44 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | — | 13 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 78 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | — | 17 | 4.9 |
| 2021 | 135 | 10th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | — | 17 | 8.7 |
| 2022 | 12 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | — | 9 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 156 | 12th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | — | 14 | 9.3 |
| 2024 | 89 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 12 | 6.6 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 232 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 5% of the irrigation seasons in 2002-2024 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.