Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NOTLEY BALL OVERFLOW D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500562 · 1 · TRINCHERA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:07 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 1889-05-31 — 65th 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: W3002 WELL NO 03 (1900-12-31). Immediately behind: NOTLEY BALL OVERFLOW D 1 (1889-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18719.14396 | 1889-05-31 | 1901-04-03 | 9.87 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 381/4(4 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1258, 04/03/1901.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1258 | 1 | 1901-04-03 | S |
04/03/1901 | 1 | 1901-04-03 | 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 706 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 1,712 | 15th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 119 | 9.9 |
| 1999 | 1,002 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 161 | 9.9 |
| 2000 | 706 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 87 | 9.9 |
| 2001 | 216 | 4th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 19 | 14.0 |
| 2003 | 236 | 5th lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 15 | 9.9 |
| 2004 | 324 | 7th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 21 | 12.6 |
| 2005 | 711 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 93 | 4.8 |
| 2007 | 71 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 49 | 1.6 |
| 2008 | 1,397 | 14th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 104 | 13.6 |
| 2009 | 1,171 | 13th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 81 | 11.7 |
| 2010 | 980 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 56 | 16.3 |
| 2015 | 252 | 6th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 53 | 13.6 |
| 2017 | 959 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 59 | 15.0 |
| 2019 | 204 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 29 | 11.2 |
| 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2911 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% 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.