Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHUMWAY PERKINS PMPG STA
Structure dossier · WDID 3200665 · 7 · YELLOW JACKET CANYON · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:35 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 1972-01-18 — 292nd 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: KEITH PUMP AND PIPELINE (1971-07-09). Immediately behind: SHUMWAY PERKINS PS AP PT2 (1972-01-18).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44577.0 | 1972-01-18 | 1972-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W0457, 88CW0094, 84CW0133, 80CW0179, 12CW0017.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0457 | 2 | 1972-12-31 | S |
88CW0094 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
84CW0133 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
80CW0179 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
12CW0017 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | 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 272 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 222 AF — 82% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 472 | 12th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 120 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 694 | 15th lowest of 15 · 255% of median | 219 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 272 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 127 | 1.5 |
| 1999 | 311 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 158 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 524 | 14th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 133 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 64 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 161 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 121 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 162 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 228 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 231 | 0.5 |
| 2004 | 473 | 13th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 205 | 1.5 |
| 2005 | 417 | 11th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 211 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 86 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 146 | 0.3 |
| 2007 | 145 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 245 | 0.3 |
| 2008 | 400 | 10th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 243 | 1.0 |
| 2009 | 215 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 202 | 0.6 |
| 2010 | 222 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 225 | 0.5 |
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 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3895 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 60% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-2010 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.