Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRIPPLE CREEK RES NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1203907 · 3 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:14 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 1861-03-30 — 4th most senior of the 1967 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: CRIPPLE CREEK RES NO 1 (1861-03-30). Immediately behind: CRIPPLE CREEK RES NO 3 (1861-03-30).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4107.0 | 1861-03-30 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 2 |
| 4128.0 | 1861-04-20 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 5 |
| 4158.0 | 1861-05-20 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 7 |
| 5254.0 | 1864-05-20 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 19 |
| 5570.0 | 1865-04-01 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUNINDDOM | 24 |
| 7780.0 | 1871-04-20 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 67 |
| 9236.0 | 1875-04-15 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 151 |
| 12474.0 | 1884-02-25 | 1894-02-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 298 |
| 15304.0 | 1891-11-25 | 1916-02-14 | 309.92 | 0.0 | A | MUN | NI25.75 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2637, CA4018, 92CW0077.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2637 | 1 | 1916-02-14 | O |
CA4018 | 8 | 1894-02-03 | O |
92CW0077 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | 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 8 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 716 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 811 AF — 113% of that, and 6th lowest of the 8 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1926 | 73 | 2nd lowest of 8 · 10% of median | 61 | 0.6 |
| 1927 | 4,653 | 8th lowest of 8 · 650% of median | 304 | 70.0 |
| 1991 | 89 | 3rd lowest of 8 · 12% of median | 61 | 1.2 |
| 1992 | 2,003 | 7th lowest of 8 · 280% of median | 305 | 386.0 |
| 2011 | 18 | 1st lowest of 8 · 2% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 2012 | 692 | 4th lowest of 8 · 97% of median | 366 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 740 | 5th lowest of 8 · 103% of median | 304 | 2.6 |
| 2015 | 811 | 6th lowest of 8 · 113% of median | 214 | 2.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 8 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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1676 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1926-2015 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.