Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WELLS KERBER D
Structure dossier · WDID 2500680 · 1 · KERBER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 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 1866-04-01 — 1st 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 behind: WELLS MIDDLE D (1866-04-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5935.0 | 1866-04-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 7426.0 | 1870-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 8871.0 | 1874-04-15 | 1890-03-28 | 0.72 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 10318.0 | 1878-04-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 60 |
| 10485.0 | 1878-09-15 | 1890-03-28 | 2.26 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 11779.0 | 1882-04-01 | 1890-03-28 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 81 |
| 12471.0 | 1884-02-22 | 1890-03-28 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 94 |
| 59169.12471 | 1884-02-22 | 1890-03-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 94 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0541, CA0517, 12CW0029, 03/28/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0541 | 2 | 1890-03-28 | O |
CA0517 | 1 | 1890-03-28 | O |
12CW0029 | 4 | 1890-03-28 | S |
03/28/1890 | 4 | 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 1,156 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,391 AF — 120% of that, and 11th 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 | 1,156 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 193 | 5.2 |
| 2012 | 902 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 150 | 5.2 |
| 2013 | 1,021 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 140 | 6.2 |
| 2014 | 849 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 161 | 4.5 |
| 2015 | 1,476 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 135 | 10.5 |
| 2016 | 2,067 | 15th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 127 | 18.0 |
| 2017 | 1,460 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 63 | 13.5 |
| 2018 | 433 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 180 | 4.2 |
| 2019 | 1,296 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 207 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 720 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 140 | 4.2 |
| 2021 | 891 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 160 | 4.2 |
| 2022 | 1,152 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 208 | 4.0 |
| 2023 | 1,493 | 14th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 196 | 9.9 |
| 2024 | 1,318 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 221 | 4.8 |
| 2025 | 1,391 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 218 | 4.7 |
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 B (7/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5473 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1956-2025 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.