Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CASCADE RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 3003536 · 3 · ELBERT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:27 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1902-10-02 — 475th most senior of the 2277 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: POWER CANAL NO 1 (1902-10-02). Immediately behind: CASCADE RESERVOIR NO 3 (1902-10-02).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26974.19267 | 1902-10-02 | 1966-03-21 | 23254.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRINDDOMOTH | 65-2 |
| 46820.0 | 1978-03-10 | 1978-12-31 | 0.0 | 22000.0 | A | IRRINDDOMOTH |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W1896, W0131, 84CW0086, CA1751-B, 84CW0085.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1896 | 1 | 1978-12-31 | S |
W0131 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
84CW0086 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
CA1751-B | 2 | 1966-03-21 | S |
84CW0085 | 1 | 1966-03-21 | S |
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 395 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 4,041 AF — 1023% of that, and 11th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 112 | 7th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 602 | 185 | 0.7 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 182 | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 105 | 6th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 220 | 128 | 0.4 |
| 2007 | 98 | 4th lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 301 | 154 | 0.4 |
| 2008 | 21 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 320 | 83 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 62 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 361 | 85 | 0.4 |
| 2010 | 98 | 4th lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 2,976 | 188 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 9,708 | 14th lowest of 15 · 2458% of median | 15,498 | 365 | 186.8 |
| 2012 | 8,753 | 13th lowest of 15 · 2216% of median | 11,088 | 366 | 158.1 |
| 2013 | 395 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 9,601 | 303 | 4.5 |
| 2014 | 3,560 | 10th lowest of 15 · 901% of median | 278 | 304 | 110.6 |
| 2015 | 11,868 | 15th lowest of 15 · 3005% of median | 678 | 365 | 88.8 |
| 2016 | 738 | 9th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 5,207 | 305 | 28.0 |
| 2017 | 6,135 | 12th lowest of 15 · 1553% of median | 6,869 | 365 | 61.0 |
| 2018 | 4,041 | 11th lowest of 15 · 1023% of median | 4,410 | 273 | 121.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+120 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.020).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6629 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 72% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2018 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.