Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FILLY LAKE
Structure dossier · WDID 0603372 · RESERVOIR · BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:21 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 2002-10-01 — 1816th 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: JEWELL MOUNTAIN LAKE (2002-01-23). Immediately behind: 0603376 (2002-10-01).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 26.2, it is 57th of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: NWRF RESERVOIR. Immediately downstream: NELSON LAKE 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55791.0 | 2002-10-01 | 2002-12-31 | 590.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRINDAUG | |
| 56978.0 | 2005-12-31 | 2005-12-31 | 672.42 | 327.58 | A | IRRINDAUG |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
23CW3058, 02CW0216.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
23CW3058 | 3 | 2005-12-31 | S |
02CW0216 | 3 | 2005-12-31 | 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 9 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 786 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 21 AF — 3% of that, and 1st lowest of the 8 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 1,637 | 8th lowest of 8 · 208% of median | — | 40 | 33.8 |
| 2017 | 998 | 6th lowest of 8 · 127% of median | — | 70 | 18.7 |
| 2018 | 1,400 | 7th lowest of 8 · 178% of median | 956 | 107 | 52.2 |
| 2019 | 955 | 5th lowest of 8 · 122% of median | 659 | 32 | 24.8 |
| 2021 | 101 | 2nd lowest of 8 · 13% of median | — | 14 | 3.9 |
| 2022 | — | no recorded volume | 387 | 0 | — |
| 2023 | 617 | 4th lowest of 8 · 78% of median | 47 | 18 | 45.0 |
| 2024 | 198 | 3rd lowest of 8 · 25% of median | — | 11 | 32.1 |
| 2025 | 21 | 1st lowest of 8 · 3% of median | — | 3 | 5.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 8 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, ERIE NORTH WATER EFFLUENT: no clear flow trend.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | current | 295 measured days, newest 428 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 2016-2025 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.