Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LAKE MORAINE RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 1003654 · 3 · RUXTON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:35 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 1888-12-31 — 112th 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: SPRING RUN RESERVOIR 2 (1888-08-21). Immediately behind: MONUMENT CEMETERY NO 4 (1888-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14245.0 | 1888-12-31 | 1919-06-02 | 824.1506 | 0.0 | A | IRR | R16 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA13801, CA10146.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13801 | 2 | 1919-06-02 | S |
CA10146 | 1 | 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 1,075 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,108 AF — 103% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 68 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 215 | 4.7 |
| 2012 | 81 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 335 | 2.2 |
| 2013 | 413 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 361 | 11.6 |
| 2014 | 221 | 4th lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 335 | 7.4 |
| 2015 | 1,210 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 334 | 9.9 |
| 2016 | 1,340 | 11th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 365 | 21.3 |
| 2017 | 1,075 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 305 | 8.1 |
| 2018 | 32 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 365 | 2.9 |
| 2019 | 970 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 365 | 5.8 |
| 2020 | 730 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 336 | 4.6 |
| 2021 | 1,532 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 365 | 17.3 |
| 2022 | 1,887 | 14th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 365 | 11.3 |
| 2023 | 2,252 | 15th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 365 | 15.2 |
| 2024 | 1,796 | 13th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 366 | 9.4 |
| 2025 | 1,108 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 304 | 17.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+130 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.008).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6671 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1995-2025 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.