Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CREWS GULCH AUG STATION
Structure dossier · WDID 1000856 · M · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:44 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 2017-10-28 — 2637th 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: KREHBIEL NT LARAMIE FOX HILLS (2017-09-29). Immediately behind: WOLFF II NNT DAWSON (2018-01-09).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61297.0 | 2017-10-28 | 2017-12-31 | 72.3 | 0.0 | A | AUG |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
17CW3072.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3072 | 1 | 2017-12-31 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 842 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 842 AF — 100% of that, and 6th lowest of the 11 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | — | no recorded volume | 794 | 0 | — |
| 1998 | — | no recorded volume | 1,246 | 0 | — |
| 2000 | — | no recorded volume | 678 | 0 | — |
| 2001 | — | no recorded volume | 1,309 | 0 | — |
| 2002 | 324 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 38% of median | 746 | 17 | 12.0 |
| 2003 | 836 | 5th lowest of 11 · 99% of median | 803 | 110 | 10.8 |
| 2004 | 974 | 9th lowest of 11 · 116% of median | 1,035 | 255 | 9.3 |
| 2005 | 1,760 | 11th lowest of 11 · 209% of median | 482 | 113 | 12.7 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 2,811 | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 878 | 7th lowest of 11 · 104% of median | 825 | 117 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 922 | 8th lowest of 11 · 110% of median | 671 | 108 | 166.8 |
| 2009 | 723 | 4th lowest of 11 · 86% of median | 757 | 121 | 20.5 |
| 2010 | 1,348 | 10th lowest of 11 · 160% of median | 1,075 | 365 | 20.9 |
| 2011 | 543 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 64% of median | 543 | 365 | 16.5 |
| 2012 | 842 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 842 | 305 | 13.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1880 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1993-2013 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.