Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JACKSON GULCH RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 3403589 · 3 · WEST MANCOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:38 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 1936-10-31 — 371st most senior of the 495 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: WEST MANCOS WTR SUP SYS (1936-10-31). Immediately behind: SPENCER DITCH (1937-08-08).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31715.0 | 1936-10-31 | 1963-03-22 | 9980.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMPWROTH | R62-14 |
| 51499.3835 | 1954-12-31 | 1991-12-31 | 1385.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNINDRECFIRDOMOTH | |
| 51499.51499 | 1990-12-31 | 1991-12-31 | 616.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNINDRECFIRDOMPWROTH |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
91CW0058, 07CW0021, CA0967.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
91CW0058 | 3 | 1991-12-31 | S |
07CW0021 | 1 | 1991-12-31 | S |
CA0967 | 1 | 1963-03-22 | 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 5,128 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,843 AF — 114% of that, and 10th 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 | 5,506 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 6,591 | 115 | 118.4 |
| 2012 | 5,128 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 6,863 | 74 | 93.9 |
| 2013 | 2,839 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 1,150 | 152 | 73.5 |
| 2014 | 5,030 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 3,883 | 305 | 76.7 |
| 2015 | 7,580 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 4,457 | 365 | 134.4 |
| 2016 | 5,933 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 4,860 | 366 | 107.4 |
| 2017 | 6,065 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 4,517 | 365 | 98.8 |
| 2018 | 1,689 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 4,525 | 365 | 25.4 |
| 2019 | 9,224 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 5,961 | 365 | 147.9 |
| 2020 | 3,369 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 3,739 | 366 | 77.7 |
| 2021 | 2,079 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 165 | 365 | 44.0 |
| 2022 | 7,091 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 3,722 | 365 | 114.2 |
| 2023 | 840 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 4,523 | 365 | 9.1 |
| 2024 | 4,547 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 3,641 | 366 | 85.2 |
| 2025 | 5,843 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 4,507 | 304 | 132.4 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4603 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2009-2025 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.