ROCK CREEK ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH TARRYAL ☆ My Water

Where this structure is measured

A green link is DWR's own: either its telemetry inventory maps this WDID to that station, or the station is named for this WDID (0700553 → 0700553A). An amber one is ours — the station sits within 250 m and shares a distinctive word with this structure's name, which is a strong hint rather than a DWR statement that this gage meters this structure. Wrong? Tell us.

Flowing now

0.98 cfs last reported 2026-08-10 10:45

This station has not reported in over a day, so treat the number as the last thing it said, not as now.

Provisional 15-minute telemetry from RCKTARCO ↗ (ROCK CREEK ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH TARRYALL CREEK). Raw, not the approved record — it is never merged into the diversion history below. DWR publishes the official diversion record after the water year closes and is approved, which is why that record ends months back while this reads minutes ago.

In short

ROCK CREEK ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH TARRYAL holds 26 decreed rights on ROCK CREEK. A call at CHATFIELD RESERVOIR on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER (1868-03-03) currently reaches it: fully called out. 5 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: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 396 acre-feet.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (5 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Current administration

● Fully called out — call at CHATFIELD RESERVOIR (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1868-03-03).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. 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 1872-05-01 — 390th most senior of the 21886 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: SUCCESS DITCH (1872-04-30)☆. Immediately behind: DIXON FLUME ON HOLTHUSEN GULCH (1872-05-15)☆.

Decreed rights (26)

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 5.1 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 4.402 cfs in priority (86% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 6.4% of days.

On 130 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 33 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

30 decreed actions on record across 1 court case: 84CW0057.

33 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 28 water-court documents across 3 cases, including 4 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-09-17.

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 2302915 ↗ (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 →

How often is it out of priority?

Across the 11 seasons whose call record is complete enough to judge this structure (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026), week by week from April.

Structures it shares court cases with

Also a party to 1 omnibus adjudication (84CW0057, 42 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

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 396 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 485 AF — 122% of that, and 12th 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.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.