Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARVARD D (COTTONWD CRK)
Structure dossier · WDID 1100657 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 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 1872-12-17 — 89th most senior of the 1489 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: TROUT CREEK DITCH CO (1872-12-17). Immediately behind: SILVER CREEK-RONK DITCH (1872-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8387.0 | 1872-12-17 | 1890-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 11809.0 | 1882-05-01 | 1903-01-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 111A |
| 37597.0 | 1952-12-08 | 1969-07-09 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | A137 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA5141, CA5288, CA1774, 82CW0216.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5141 | 1 | 1969-07-09 | S |
CA5288 | 1 | 1903-01-20 | O |
CA1774 | 2 | 1903-01-20 | O |
82CW0216 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | 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 431 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 431 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 430 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 227 | 2.5 |
| 2008 | 520 | 15th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 366 | 2.5 |
| 2009 | 453 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 306 | 2.5 |
| 2010 | 455 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 162 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 476 | 14th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 164 | 2.5 |
| 2012 | 395 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 159 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 449 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 157 | 1.9 |
| 2014 | 194 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 57 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 274 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 155 | 1.6 |
| 2016 | 244 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 111 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 365 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 134 | 2.4 |
| 2018 | 86 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 40 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 474 | 13th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 137 | 2.3 |
| 2020 | 433 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 128 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 431 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 140 | 2.0 |
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 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 | 6253 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2021 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.