Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SCMWD PUMP STATION NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1400666 · 8 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:40 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 1866-07-31 — 8th most senior of the 1358 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: 1400517 (1866-07-31). Immediately behind: SCMWD PUMP STATION NO 4 (1866-07-31).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6056.0 | 1866-07-31 | 1890-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNREC | |
| 6209.0 | 1866-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | |
| 8401.0 | 1872-12-31 | 1890-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNREC | |
| 8766.0 | 1873-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 0 |
| 12053.0 | 1882-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 0 |
| 12784.0 | 1884-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 0 |
| 14610.0 | 1889-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 0 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
80CW0163, W4411.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
80CW0163 | 5 | 1893-06-26 | O |
W4411 | 2 | 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 11 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 294 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, came in at 567 AF — 193% of that, and 11th lowest of the 11 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 89 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 30% of median | 32 | 1.5 |
| 1991 | 294 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 105 | 1.5 |
| 1992 | 292 | 5th lowest of 11 · 99% of median | 110 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 348 | 10th lowest of 11 · 118% of median | 93 | 2.5 |
| 1994 | 340 | 8th lowest of 11 · 116% of median | 107 | 1.8 |
| 1995 | 342 | 9th lowest of 11 · 116% of median | 133 | 1.7 |
| 1996 | 319 | 7th lowest of 11 · 108% of median | 125 | 1.5 |
| 1997 | 220 | 4th lowest of 11 · 75% of median | 78 | 1.5 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.1 |
| 2010 | 86 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 29% of median | 31 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 567 | 11th lowest of 11 · 193% of median | 272 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1088 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2011 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.