Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FUCHS RES
Structure dossier · WDID 2003539 · 3 · PINOS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1930-07-17 — 2790th 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: ZEIGLER ROCK CR D (1929-10-15). Immediately behind: ALBERTA PARK RES (1930-09-27).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32400.29417 | 1930-07-17 | 1960-01-27 | 109.41 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 1959-5 |
| 32473.0 | 1938-11-28 | 1960-01-27 | 43.74 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 1959-5A |
| 34241.0 | 1943-10-01 | 1960-01-27 | 35.76 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 1959-5B |
| 34241.0 | 1943-10-01 | 1960-01-27 | 51.96 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 1959-5C |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA2673.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2673 | 4 | 1960-01-27 | 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 120 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 106 AF — 88% of that, and 5th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | — | no recorded volume | 83 | 0 | — |
| 2012 | 63 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 52% of median | — | 45 | 0.7 |
| 2013 | 209 | 13th lowest of 14 · 174% of median | — | 159 | 0.7 |
| 2014 | 182 | 11th lowest of 14 · 152% of median | 180 | 152 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 171 | 9th lowest of 14 · 142% of median | 152 | 152 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 106 | 5th lowest of 14 · 88% of median | 325 | 117 | 6.3 |
| 2017 | 121 | 8th lowest of 14 · 101% of median | 110 | 365 | 6.3 |
| 2018 | 82 | 4th lowest of 14 · 68% of median | 178 | 365 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 182 | 11th lowest of 14 · 152% of median | 182 | 365 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 188 | 366 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 254 | 14th lowest of 14 · 212% of median | 157 | 365 | 1.0 |
| 2022 | 176 | 10th lowest of 14 · 147% of median | 118 | 365 | 1.4 |
| 2023 | 119 | 7th lowest of 14 · 99% of median | 71 | 315 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 60% of median | 153 | 275 | 0.6 |
| 2025 | 106 | 5th lowest of 14 · 88% of median | 168 | 91 | 0.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4096 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 49% of the irrigation seasons in 1986-2025 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.