Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOSS LAKE
Structure dossier · WDID 1103920 · 3 · LAKE FORK STREAM · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:59 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 1982-12-09 — 1185th 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: CAMPBELL WELL 1 (1982-09-14). Immediately behind: WICKERS SPRING RESERVOIR (1937-12-31).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48555.0 | 1982-12-09 | 1982-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | MUN | |
| 53826.0 | 1997-05-15 | 1997-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG | |
| 57610.0 | 2007-09-24 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 57610.0 | 2007-09-24 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STO | |
| 58401.0 | 2009-11-23 | 2009-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STOMUN |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
09CW0138, 07CW0111, 97CW0031, 17CW3007, 82CW0104, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0138 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
07CW0111 | 2 | 2007-12-31 | S |
97CW0031 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
17CW3007 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
82CW0104 | 1 | 1982-12-31 | O |
CA1127 | 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 34 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 34 AF — 100% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 37 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 46 | 0.4 |
| 2009 | 289 | 14th lowest of 15 · 850% of median | — | 165 | 12.8 |
| 2010 | 135 | 13th lowest of 15 · 397% of median | 184 | 94 | 4.6 |
| 2011 | 475 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1397% of median | — | 175 | 16.0 |
| 2012 | 63 | 12th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | — | 7 | 14.1 |
| 2013 | 4 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | — | 5 | 1.4 |
| 2014 | 15 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | — | 133 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 27 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | — | 190 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 18 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | — | 144 | 0.1 |
| 2017 | 34 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 153 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 23 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 94 | 0.1 |
| 2019 | 36 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 153 | 0.1 |
| 2020 | 14 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | — | 146 | 0.1 |
| 2021 | 50 | 11th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | — | 214 | 0.5 |
| 2022 | 34 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 304 | 0.5 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2118 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1981-2022 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.