KNOBLAUCH D 1 ☆ My Water

In short

KNOBLAUCH D 1 holds 3 decreed rights on RIO GRANDE. A call at CHICAGO D on RIO GRANDE (1881-09-01) currently reaches it: fully called out. 8 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. That is today's position; the weeks ahead cannot be projected for it: only 1 analog year(s) have both flow and a complete administration record; 4 needed. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 188 acre-feet. That use is rising by about 14.3 acre-feet a year over 15 years (p=0.04776124267510373). It was a party to 2 court cases that also touched 2 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (13 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Current administration

● Fully called out — call at CHICAGO D (RIO GRANDE, priority 1881-09-01).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: only 1 analog year(s) have both flow and a complete administration record; 4 needed. Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1884-04-01 — 255th most senior of the 8023 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: RESETTLEMENT D (1884-03-20)☆. Immediately behind: STAR D (1884-05-30)☆.

On MAINSTEM at river mile 79.8, it is 153rd of 380 down the reach. Immediately upstream: UPPER SEITZ CREEK SPRING☆. Immediately downstream: SUGARLOAF SPRING☆.

Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.

Decreed rights (3)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 7.36 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 1.738 cfs in priority (24% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 0.2% of days.

On 1004 days some rights were in priority and others were not — seniority splits a decree rather than switching it off. Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it. A call began or ended mid-day on 3 of these days.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

3 decreed actions on record across 2 court cases: 83CW0017, 87CW0024.

12 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 12 water-court documents across 2 cases, including 2 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-10-14.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 2001130 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 2 court cases that also touched 2 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 188 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 297 AF — 158% of that, and 14th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+14 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).

Its reference gage, Independent D 2: no clear flow trend.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.