Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH 38 D
Structure dossier · WDID 2600676 · 1 · SAGUACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:23 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 1874-03-01 — 75th 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: W0722 WELL NO 01 (1873-12-31). Immediately behind: ELLIS AND LAMB D (1874-03-15).
Decreed rights (10)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8826.0 | 1874-03-01 | 1889-11-23 | 8.48 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 40 |
| 9222.0 | 1875-04-01 | 1889-11-23 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 9297.0 | 1875-06-15 | 1889-11-23 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 58 |
| 9649.0 | 1876-06-01 | 1889-11-23 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 67 |
| 9710.0 | 1876-08-01 | 1889-11-23 | 3.52 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68 |
| 9983.0 | 1877-05-01 | 1889-11-23 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 72 |
| 10014.0 | 1877-06-01 | 1889-11-23 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 73 |
| 10774.0 | 1879-07-01 | 1889-11-23 | 6.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 82 |
| 11185.0 | 1880-08-15 | 1889-11-23 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 93 |
| 11475.0 | 1881-06-01 | 1889-11-23 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
11CW0024, CA1146.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0024 | 1 | 2011-12-31 | S |
CA1146 | 13 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 461 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 439 AF — 95% of that, and 6th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 274 | 5th lowest of 13 · 59% of median | 37 | 4.5 |
| 1994 | 91 | 4th lowest of 13 · 20% of median | 8 | 8.8 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 2,234 | 10th lowest of 13 · 485% of median | 32 | 35.2 |
| 2017 | 6,214 | 13th lowest of 13 · 1348% of median | 92 | 35.2 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 5,237 | 12th lowest of 13 · 1136% of median | 136 | 35.2 |
| 2021 | 4,675 | 11th lowest of 13 · 1014% of median | 142 | 35.2 |
| 2022 | 1,428 | 9th lowest of 13 · 310% of median | 91 | 20.0 |
| 2023 | 461 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 94 | 8.0 |
| 2024 | 684 | 8th lowest of 13 · 148% of median | 240 | 6.5 |
| 2025 | 439 | 6th lowest of 13 · 95% of median | 120 | 7.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 10 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1000 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 14% of the irrigation seasons in 1993-2025 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.