Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
IDAHO CREEK RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0603361 · RESERVOIR · BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:25 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (5cd37f7) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at RURAL DITCH (BOULDER CREEK, priority 1862-05-09).
● Fully called out — call at JONES DONNELLY DITCH (SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, priority 1860-04-30).
● Fully called out — call at HOWARD DITCH (SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, priority 1860-04-01).
● Fully called out — call at LOWER LATHAM DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1885-11-20).
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: only 3 analog year(s) have both flow and a complete administration record; 4 needed.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1990-03-06 — 1756th most senior of the 1867 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: IDAHO CR RES INLET ALT P (1990-03-06). Immediately behind: 0603341 (1990-05-16).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 27.3, it is 59th of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: NELSON LAKE NO 1. Immediately downstream: WILLIAMS RES NO 1.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51199.0 | 1990-03-06 | 1990-12-31 | 0.0 | 89.0 | A | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISAUGCUR | |
| 54421.53973 | 1997-10-09 | 1999-12-31 | 89.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISAUGCURWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
99CW0202, 98CW0429, 97CW0260, 90CW0084.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0202 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
98CW0429 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
97CW0260 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
90CW0084 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | 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 8 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 27 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 27 AF — 100% of that, and 4th lowest of the 8 years with a recorded volume.
| 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 | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 15 | 2nd lowest of 8 · 56% of median | 33 | 0.2 |
| 1999 | 45 | 8th lowest of 8 · 167% of median | 94 | 1.5 |
| 2009 | 27 | 4th lowest of 8 · 100% of median | 26 | 0.9 |
| 2011 | 43 | 7th lowest of 8 · 159% of median | 22 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 26 | 3rd lowest of 8 · 96% of median | 10 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 28 | 6th lowest of 8 · 104% of median | 15 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 10 | 1st lowest of 8 · 37% of median | 4 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 27 | 4th lowest of 8 · 100% of median | 26 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 8 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, SMITH EMMONS DITCH: no clear flow trend.
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 | stale | 230 measured days, but newest is 2505 day(s) before the data's end (target 450) |
| record continuity | sparse | 5% of the irrigation seasons in 1998-2019 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.