Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LISTON & LOVE SOUTH CHPOD
Structure dossier · WDID 1006775 · 2 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 1863-03-21 — 45th 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: LISTON & LOVE SOUTH (1863-03-21). Immediately behind: COTTEN SLOUGH DITCH (1863-12-31).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4828.0 | 1863-03-21 | 1882-03-06 | 1.874 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 8035.0 | 1871-12-31 | 1882-03-06 | 0.765 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
02CW0027.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0027 | 2 | 1882-03-06 | O |
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 130 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 670 AF — 515% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 130 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 133 | 0.9 |
| 2011 | 87 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 106 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 65 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 121 | 0.9 |
| 2013 | 66 | 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 92 | 0.7 |
| 2014 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 23 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 124 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 184 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 61 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 182 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 125 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 365 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 286 | 10th lowest of 15 · 220% of median | 304 | 2.7 |
| 2020 | 414 | 12th lowest of 15 · 318% of median | 275 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 262 | 9th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 365 | 2.6 |
| 2022 | 335 | 11th lowest of 15 · 258% of median | 365 | 2.6 |
| 2023 | 490 | 13th lowest of 15 · 377% of median | 365 | 2.6 |
| 2024 | 701 | 15th lowest of 15 · 539% of median | 366 | 2.9 |
| 2025 | 670 | 14th lowest of 15 · 515% of median | 304 | 7.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+39 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4058 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 95% of the irrigation seasons in 2005-2025 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.