Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LISTON & LOVE SOUTH
Structure dossier · WDID 1000735 · 1 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:27 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 1863-03-21 — 44th 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: M W STEELE WELL NO 6A (1863-03-01). Immediately behind: LISTON & LOVE SOUTH CHPOD (1863-03-21).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4828.0 | 1863-03-21 | 1882-03-06 | 1.874 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
| 8035.0 | 1871-12-31 | 1882-03-06 | 0.765 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 33 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W4077, 02CW0027.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W4077 | 2 | 1882-03-06 | O |
02CW0027 | 4 | 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 378 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 251 AF — 66% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 469 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 122 | 3.3 |
| 1992 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 105 | 3.1 |
| 1993 | 598 | 13th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 187 | 3.5 |
| 1994 | 801 | 15th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 286 | 3.7 |
| 1995 | 626 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 265 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 520 | 10th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 272 | 3.0 |
| 1997 | 546 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 252 | 4.0 |
| 1998 | 582 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 314 | 3.6 |
| 1999 | 97 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 57 | 3.1 |
| 2000 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 24 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 362 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 143 | 3.0 |
| 2002 | 378 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 202 | 3.1 |
| 2003 | 156 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 160 | 3.5 |
| 2004 | 112 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 318 | 2.1 |
| 2005 | 251 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 139 | 2.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-34 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 4899 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 75% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2005 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.