Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
I L GOTTHELF
Structure dossier · WDID 2600569 · 1 · SAGUACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:26 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 1871-07-02 — 44th most senior of the 1548 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: HODDING D 3 (1871-05-10). Immediately behind: MONK D 3 (1871-07-02).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7853.0 | 1871-07-02 | 1889-11-23 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1889-11-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 94 |
| 12180.0 | 1883-05-07 | 1889-11-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 104 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0016, CA1152.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0016 | 2 | 1889-11-23 | O |
CA1152 | 1 | 1889-11-23 | 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 171 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 104 AF — 61% of that, and 7th 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 | 12 | 4th lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 36 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 18 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 71 | 5th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 54 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 171 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 90 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 901 | 14th lowest of 15 · 527% of median | 150 | 4.7 |
| 2016 | 1,177 | 15th lowest of 15 · 688% of median | 93 | 15.0 |
| 2017 | 420 | 13th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 154 | 4.1 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 369 | 12th lowest of 15 · 216% of median | 110 | 3.7 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 49 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 198 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 113 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 83 | 6th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 53 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 187 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 89 | 4.2 |
| 2024 | 202 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 109 | 2.7 |
| 2025 | 104 | 7th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 79 | 2.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4578 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% 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.