Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MANITOU IRON SPRINGS P/L
Structure dossier · WDID 1000626 · 7 · RUXTON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1861-03-20 — 8th most senior of the 2864 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: EL PASO COUNTY CANAL (1861-03-20). Immediately behind: 33RD ST PUMP STATION (1861-03-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4097.0 | 1861-03-20 | 1882-03-06 | 0.0993 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 2 |
| 13209.0 | 1886-03-01 | 1954-02-08 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA13801, CA38070.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13801 | 1 | 1954-02-08 | O |
CA38070 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | 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 72 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1989, came in at 60 AF — 83% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1975 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1976 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 1977 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1978 | 71 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1979 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1980 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 1981 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1982 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1983 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1984 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 1985 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1986 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1987 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1988 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 1989 | 60 | 1st lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 304 | 0.1 |
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 A (9/10 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 | present | 7670 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1958-1989 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.