Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HULL D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500528 · 1 · BIG SPRING CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 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 1877-05-01 — 43rd 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: NEWTON D HANNAH-THOMPSON (1876-04-01). Immediately behind: BUFFALO 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9983.0 | 1877-05-01 | 1895-03-26 | 16.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4A |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/26/1895.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/26/1895 | 1 | 1895-03-26 | 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 1,100 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 903 AF — 82% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 804 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 176 | 3.4 |
| 1998 | 1,663 | 12th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 181 | 15.0 |
| 1999 | 1,471 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 209 | 7.0 |
| 2000 | 809 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 219 | 3.5 |
| 2001 | 1,100 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 150 | 5.0 |
| 2002 | 1,032 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 213 | 2.5 |
| 2003 | 584 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 95 | 5.1 |
| 2005 | 1,880 | 14th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 197 | 6.6 |
| 2006 | 1,366 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 174 | 5.1 |
| 2007 | 2,194 | 15th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 213 | 9.6 |
| 2011 | 1,755 | 13th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 197 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 1,219 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 213 | 4.4 |
| 2021 | 946 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 149 | 5.3 |
| 2022 | 1,078 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 216 | 3.4 |
| 2023 | 903 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 214 | 3.1 |
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 | 7082 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1952-2023 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.