Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FOUNTAIN VALLEY RES NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1003641 · 3 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:53 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 1903-03-18 — 149th 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: CURITON RESERVOIR (1903-03-15). Immediately behind: HARMAN RESERVOIR (1891-12-31).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19434.0 | 1903-03-18 | 1919-06-02 | 10009.1827 | 0.0 | A | IRRAUG | R39 |
| 57341.0 | 2006-12-29 | 2006-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMAUGWLD | |
| 61297.0 | 2017-10-28 | 2017-12-31 | 168.7 | 0.0 | A | STOALL |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
17CW3072, 17CW3059, 06CW0126, 01CW0149, CA10146, 19CW3082.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3072 | 1 | 2017-12-31 | S |
17CW3059 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
06CW0126 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
01CW0149 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
CA10146 | 1 | 1919-06-02 | S |
19CW3082 | 2 | 1919-06-02 | 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 3,586 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,586 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | — | no recorded volume | 0 | 0 | — |
| 2011 | — | no recorded volume | 2,921 | 0 | — |
| 2012 | — | no recorded volume | 3,351 | 0 | — |
| 2013 | 3,000 | 5th lowest of 11 · 84% of median | 2,603 | 61 | 37.3 |
| 2014 | 4,359 | 7th lowest of 11 · 122% of median | 1,269 | 92 | 40.5 |
| 2015 | 2,005 | 4th lowest of 11 · 56% of median | 879 | 92 | 42.7 |
| 2016 | 17 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 3,227 | 31 | 1.3 |
| 2017 | — | no recorded volume | 80 | 0 | — |
| 2019 | 202 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 6% of median | — | 61 | 8.5 |
| 2020 | 1,929 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 54% of median | 1,134 | 122 | 36.3 |
| 2021 | 5,224 | 8th lowest of 11 · 146% of median | 1,874 | 365 | 41.8 |
| 2022 | 7,866 | 11th lowest of 11 · 219% of median | 232 | 365 | 51.5 |
| 2023 | 6,153 | 10th lowest of 11 · 172% of median | 2,241 | 365 | 53.8 |
| 2024 | 5,384 | 9th lowest of 11 · 150% of median | 87 | 344 | 51.5 |
| 2025 | 3,586 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 0 | 304 | 53.8 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2202 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1993-2025 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.