JANITELL WELL NO 205 ☆ My Water

The record and the river

In short

JANITELL WELL NO 205 holds 2 decreed rights on FOUNTAIN CREEK. No active call senior to its rights reaches its district today (18 active calls checked), so it is in priority now. 12 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. That is today's position; the weeks ahead cannot be projected for it: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (4 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Well permit on file (1)

DWR ties this well permit to WDID 1005334. A permit is the authorization to construct and use the well — not a water right, and separate from the decrees on this page (three things called “well”).

Current administration

● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (18 active call(s) checked).

12 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way.

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1927-06-04 — 219th most senior of the 2872 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: LIMEKILN VALLEY PIPELINE (1926-11-29)☆. Immediately behind: MASSARO WELL NO 1 (1927-06-21)☆.

Decreed rights (2)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 0.22 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 0.0 cfs in priority (0% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 0.0% of days.

On 1 days some rights were in priority and others were not — seniority splits a decree rather than switching it off. Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

5 decreed actions on record across 2 court cases: 86CW0031, W2694.

205 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 45 water-court documents across 6 cases, including 6 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-10-03.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 1005334 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Structures it shares court cases with

Also a party to 2 omnibus adjudications (86CW0031, 37 structures; W2694, 31 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

How good is our record of it?

Grade C (6/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.