Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUFFALO D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500506 · 1 · SANGRE DE CRISTO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:59 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 1878-06-01 — 44th most senior of the 709 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: HULL D (1877-05-01). Immediately behind: MANUEL VIGIL D (1878-06-01).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1899-12-15 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 33 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3147, CA2009.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3147 | 2 | 1899-12-15 | O |
CA2009 | 1 | 1899-12-15 | 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 121 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 159 AF — 131% of that, and 12th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1966 | 56 | 5th lowest of 13 · 46% of median | — | 29 | 1.0 |
| 1967 | 28 | 4th lowest of 13 · 23% of median | — | 16 | 1.0 |
| 1968 | 151 | 10th lowest of 13 · 125% of median | — | 77 | 1.0 |
| 1969 | 128 | 8th lowest of 13 · 106% of median | — | 71 | 1.0 |
| 1970 | 151 | 10th lowest of 13 · 125% of median | — | 77 | 1.0 |
| 1971 | 20 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 16% of median | — | 11 | 1.0 |
| 1972 | 22 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 18% of median | — | 12 | 1.0 |
| 1988 | — | no recorded volume | 163 | 0 | — |
| 1989 | 246 | 13th lowest of 13 · 203% of median | — | 125 | 1.0 |
| 1990 | 136 | 9th lowest of 13 · 112% of median | — | 70 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 119 | 6th lowest of 13 · 98% of median | — | 61 | 1.0 |
| 1992 | 121 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | — | 62 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | — | no recorded volume | 0 | 0 | — |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 159 | 12th lowest of 13 · 131% of median | 159 | 84 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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
| 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 | 1464 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 10% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2022 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.