Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOX SPRINGS CANAL NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1700586 · 1 · HORSE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:50 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 1899-10-24 — 68th most senior of the 1909 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: SOUTHSIDE DITCH (1899-06-08). Immediately behind: PREISSER WELL NO 14 (1899-10-24).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20186.18194 | 1899-10-24 | 1922-08-30 | 25.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 42 |
| 20186.18813 | 1901-07-05 | 1927-02-03 | 300.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R11 |
| 21803.0 | 1909-09-11 | 1922-08-30 | 89.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 127 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
02/03/1927, 97CW0106, 97CW0052, 08/30/1922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02/03/1927 | 1 | 1927-02-03 | S |
97CW0106 | 2 | 1922-08-30 | S |
97CW0052 | 1 | 1922-08-30 | S |
08/30/1922 | 2 | 1922-08-30 | S |
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 176 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 8,529 AF — 4846% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 8 | 4th lowest of 15 · 4% of median | — | 15 | 0.6 |
| 2008 | 3 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | — | 4 | 0.7 |
| 2009 | 131 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | — | 177 | 7.9 |
| 2010 | 176 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 92 | 7.9 |
| 2011 | 155 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 88 | 5.5 |
| 2013 | 1,059 | 12th lowest of 15 · 602% of median | 153 | 188 | 250.0 |
| 2014 | 1,436 | 13th lowest of 15 · 816% of median | 140 | 122 | 268.8 |
| 2015 | 844 | 11th lowest of 15 · 480% of median | 3 | 161 | 195.4 |
| 2016 | 1,819 | 14th lowest of 15 · 1034% of median | 288 | 243 | 421.6 |
| 2017 | 562 | 9th lowest of 15 · 319% of median | 0 | 188 | 64.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 0 | 304 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 94 | 5th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | — | 38 | 4.4 |
| 2024 | 586 | 10th lowest of 15 · 333% of median | — | 61 | 71.2 |
| 2025 | 8,529 | 15th lowest of 15 · 4846% of median | — | 304 | 348.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+54 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.033).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 9315 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 85% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2025 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.