Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEEL D 2
Structure dossier · WDID 2500661 · 1 · SAN LUIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:40 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 1867-05-15 — 6th most senior of the 847 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: SCHULTZ DITTRICH D (1867-05-01). Immediately behind: COTTON CR AIRLINE D (1868-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6344.0 | 1867-05-15 | 1890-03-28 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 8553.0 | 1873-06-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 58439.06344 | 1867-05-15 | 2010-12-31 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | OTH | |
| 58439.08553 | 1873-06-01 | 2010-12-31 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | OTH |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
10CW0025, 03CW0044, 03/28/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0025 | 2 | 2010-12-31 | S |
03CW0044 | 4 | 1890-03-28 | O |
03/28/1890 | 2 | 1890-03-28 | 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 1,306 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 522 AF — 40% of that, and 1st 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 | 1,841 | 11th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 244 | 11.1 |
| 2012 | 749 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 305 | 4.5 |
| 2013 | 1,466 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 267 | 8.1 |
| 2014 | 2,538 | 12th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 317 | 17.0 |
| 2015 | 5,243 | 15th lowest of 15 · 402% of median | 360 | 37.2 |
| 2016 | 4,961 | 14th lowest of 15 · 380% of median | 323 | 37.8 |
| 2017 | 4,442 | 13th lowest of 15 · 340% of median | 268 | 30.7 |
| 2018 | 593 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 216 | 4.8 |
| 2019 | 1,303 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 196 | 11.8 |
| 2020 | 1,428 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 323 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 777 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 235 | 5.2 |
| 2022 | 1,055 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 279 | 2.9 |
| 2023 | 1,306 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 204 | 9.0 |
| 2024 | 1,190 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 304 | 12.1 |
| 2025 | 522 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 209 | 9.1 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14175 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 88% 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.