Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RAINBOW LAKE (M COTTONWD CRK)
Structure dossier · WDID 1103535 · 3 · MIDDLE COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:33 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 1864-12-19 — 23rd 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: THOMPSON DITCH (1864-12-19). Immediately behind: COTTONWOOD LAKE (1864-12-19).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5467.0 | 1864-12-19 | 1890-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG | 3 |
| 41932.0 | 1964-10-21 | 1969-07-09 | 106.21 | 0.0 | A | FIS | A179 |
| 53368.0 | 1996-02-12 | 1996-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDAUG | |
| 58073.0 | 2008-12-30 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
08CW0106, 96CW0017, 05CW0051, CA5141, 95CW0208.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08CW0106 | 1 | 2008-12-31 | S |
96CW0017 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
05CW0051 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA5141 | 1 | 1969-07-09 | S |
95CW0208 | 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 35 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 20 AF — 57% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 27 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 160 | 46 | 1.8 |
| 2009 | 103 | 15th lowest of 15 · 294% of median | — | 30 | 6.4 |
| 2010 | 35 | 6th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 1 | 89 | 1.7 |
| 2011 | 54 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 19 | 14 | 7.1 |
| 2012 | 40 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 8 | 16 | 4.3 |
| 2013 | 19 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 5 | 12 | 2.6 |
| 2014 | 35 | 6th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 5 | 157 | 4.3 |
| 2015 | 28 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 184 | 0.1 |
| 2016 | 14 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | — | 61 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 98 | 14th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | — | 177 | 5.5 |
| 2018 | 48 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | — | 142 | 0.3 |
| 2019 | 37 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 89 | 0.2 |
| 2020 | 35 | 6th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 3 | 30 | 3.2 |
| 2021 | 75 | 13th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | — | 214 | 3.2 |
| 2022 | 20 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | — | 304 | 0.1 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1596 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 2002-2022 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.