Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MURRAY-ZWICKER-TOZER D
Structure dossier · WDID 3200634 · 1 · MCELMO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:44 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1892-06-15 — 135th most senior of the 638 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: HAMBELTON DITCH (1891-04-20). Immediately behind: SCHALLES DITCH (1893-01-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15507.0 | 1892-06-15 | 1962-08-14 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 62-13A |
| 54786.54541 | 1999-04-30 | 2000-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.3 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
00CW0012, CA1077.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
00CW0012 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
CA1077 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | 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 1,666 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,514 AF — 91% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,916 | 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 1,694 | 245 | 8.5 |
| 2012 | 2,464 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 982 | 203 | 7.9 |
| 2013 | 1,188 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 300 | 216 | 6.9 |
| 2014 | 1,215 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 213 | 200 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,879 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 685 | 189 | 7.5 |
| 2016 | 1,500 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 684 | 252 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 2,104 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 842 | 265 | 10.3 |
| 2018 | 1,122 | 1st lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 247 | 189 | 6.3 |
| 2019 | 2,302 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 615 | 198 | 10.3 |
| 2020 | 1,952 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 545 | 215 | 9.0 |
| 2021 | 1,206 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 141 | 186 | 7.8 |
| 2022 | 1,543 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 216 | 214 | 9.3 |
| 2023 | 1,801 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 466 | 151 | 8.0 |
| 2024 | 1,666 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 464 | 195 | 6.8 |
| 2025 | 1,514 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 144 | 198 | 7.5 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 11571 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 86% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2025 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.