Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MILL D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500546 · 1 · UTE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1867-05-01 — 31st 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: GARLAND D,HDGT 2 (1867-05-01). Immediately behind: NEWTON D 2 (1867-05-01).
Decreed rights (10)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6330.0 | 1867-05-01 | 1900-11-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 61/2 |
| 8157.0 | 1872-05-01 | 1900-11-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181/2 |
| 8917.0 | 1874-05-31 | 1899-12-15 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 11109.0 | 1880-05-31 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 13818.0 | 1887-10-31 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 21376.0 | 1908-07-11 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 71 |
| 22156.0 | 1910-08-30 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79 |
| 22320.0 | 1911-02-10 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 81 |
| 22324.0 | 1911-02-14 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 82 |
| 22377.0 | 1911-04-08 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 95 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3148, CA1172.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3148 | 9 | 1915-01-04 | O, S |
CA1172 | 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 115 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 168 | 10th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 83 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 226 | 13th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 77 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 193 | 11th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 124 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 502 | 15th lowest of 15 · 436% of median | 110 | 5.0 |
| 1996 | 100 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 49 | 1.8 |
| 1997 | 74 | 6th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 27 | 3.2 |
| 1998 | 17 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 12 | 1.1 |
| 1999 | 6 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 4 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 21 | 4th lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 9 | 1.6 |
| 2001 | 115 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 43 | 3.5 |
| 2003 | 128 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 46 | 4.0 |
| 2004 | 461 | 14th lowest of 15 · 401% of median | 178 | 3.3 |
| 2005 | 204 | 12th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 147 | 2.1 |
| 2008 | 63 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 90 | 1.8 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 (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 | 10 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1481 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 10% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2021 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.