Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH CATAMOUNT RES
Structure dossier · WDID 1003673 · 3 · NORTH CATAMOUNT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:21 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 1889-07-31 — 115th 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: GOLD CAMP RESERVOIR (1889-04-01). Immediately behind: UTE PASS LAND & WATER PL (1889-08-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14457.0 | 1889-07-31 | 1919-06-02 | 25.2525 | 0.0 | A | MUN | R19 |
| 18992.0 | 1901-12-31 | 1954-02-08 | 3400.0 | 0.0 | A | MUN | 102A |
| 39811.0 | 1958-12-31 | 1960-02-16 | 10500.0 | 0.0 | A | MUN | 171A |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA13801-S, CA13801, 83CW0057.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13801-S | 1 | 1960-02-16 | S |
CA13801 | 1 | 1954-02-08 | O |
83CW0057 | 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 118 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 127 AF — 108% of that, and 10th 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 | 16 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 92 | 5.8 |
| 2012 | 107 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 335 | 3.7 |
| 2013 | 188 | 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 272 | 10.8 |
| 2014 | 59 | 5th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 184 | 12.6 |
| 2015 | 221 | 15th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 214 | 5.4 |
| 2016 | 137 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 243 | 6.3 |
| 2017 | 50 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 243 | 5.3 |
| 2018 | 120 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 365 | 2.4 |
| 2019 | 57 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 304 | 2.6 |
| 2020 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 245 | 1.3 |
| 2021 | 133 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 7.4 |
| 2022 | 135 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 365 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 72 | 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 365 | 15.4 |
| 2024 | 118 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 9.7 |
| 2025 | 127 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 304 | 10.8 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4262 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2011-2025 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.