Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH SWAMP D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500561 · 1 · TRINCHERA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:37 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 — 33rd 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 2 (1867-05-01). Immediately behind: SOUTH SWAMP D (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 | 0.0 | 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 | 53.0 | 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, 01/04/1915.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3148 | 9 | 1915-01-04 | O, S |
01/04/1915 | 1 | 1915-01-04 | 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 194 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 252 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 282 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 126 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 169 | 1.5 |
| 2001 | 194 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 229 | 1.4 |
| 2002 | 72 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 219 | 1.4 |
| 2003 | 75 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 175 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 3,169 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1634% of median | 119 | 23.5 |
| 2011 | 115 | 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 92 | 4.1 |
| 2013 | 294 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 166 | 5.9 |
| 2014 | 179 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 214 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 203 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 214 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 174 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 195 | 0.6 |
| 2017 | 238 | 12th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 214 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 220 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 217 | 0.6 |
| 2019 | 202 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 189 | 0.6 |
| 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 (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 | 10 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8867 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2021 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.