Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SARGENTS NO 2 D

Structure dossier · WDID 2800682 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:52 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 1910-05-01 — 478th most senior of the 1505 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: CHARLES W HACK NO 2 D (1910-05-01). Immediately behind: GWENDOLYN K HACK DITCH (1910-05-01).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
24074.220351910-05-011918-09-03 1.20.0 CIRR 169

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 222 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 158 AF — 71% of that, and 6th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 78 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median 83 0.6
2012 16 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median 33 0.4
2013 89 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median 101 0.8
2014 168 7th lowest of 15 · 76% of median 100 1.1
2015 116 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median 48 1.6
2016 314 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median 105 2.5
2017 278 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median 82 2.3
2018 323 15th lowest of 15 · 146% of median 113 2.6
2019 314 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median 113 4.1
2020 250 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median 96 2.9
2021 64 2nd lowest of 15 · 29% of median 61 0.6
2022 235 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 104 1.4
2023 266 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median 97 1.5
2024 222 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 113 2.6
2025 158 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median 108 0.8

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4738 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.