Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH D 1
Structure dossier · WDID 2000849 · 1 · ROCK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:51 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 1874-05-31 — 58th most senior of the 8016 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: JEMISON D 7 (1874-05-31). Immediately behind: MCNEIL-DUPKE D (1874-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8917.0 | 1874-05-31 | 1896-05-01 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 49 |
| 8918.0 | 1874-06-01 | 1896-05-01 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 52 |
| 8947.0 | 1874-06-30 | 1896-05-01 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 9239.0 | 1875-04-18 | 1896-05-01 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 77 |
| 9862.0 | 1876-12-31 | 1896-05-01 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 136 |
| 10409.0 | 1878-07-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 160 |
| 14001.0 | 1888-05-01 | 1896-05-01 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 333 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
82CW0142, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
82CW0142 | 5 | 1896-05-01 | O |
05/01/1896 | 4 | 1896-05-01 | 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 1,217 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,256 AF — 103% of that, and 10th lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 770 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 197 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 603 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 146 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 632 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 145 | 3.8 |
| 2014 | 1,385 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 205 | 7.5 |
| 2015 | 1,243 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 215 | 5.3 |
| 2016 | 1,876 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 192 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 2,298 | 15th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 215 | 11.0 |
| 2018 | 761 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 160 | 4.4 |
| 2019 | 1,592 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 190 | 9.8 |
| 2020 | 903 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 181 | 4.2 |
| 2021 | 1,217 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 155 | 8.3 |
| 2022 | 1,210 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 165 | 6.8 |
| 2023 | 1,615 | 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 199 | 9.3 |
| 2024 | 1,217 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 175 | 7.8 |
| 2025 | 1,256 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 180 | 7.8 |
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 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12674 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 78% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.