Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SANGRE DE CRISTO D
Structure dossier · WDID 3500571 · 1 · SANGRE DE CRISTO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:40 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 1863-05-31 — 20th 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: SANGRE CRISTO TRINCHERA (1863-05-31). Immediately behind: SMITH RESERVOIR (1863-05-31).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4899.0 | 1863-05-31 | 1899-12-15 | 8.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 13210.0 | 1886-03-02 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 13818.0 | 1887-10-31 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 14761.0 | 1890-05-31 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 44 |
| 16546.0 | 1895-04-20 | 1899-12-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 45 |
| 21376.0 | 1908-07-11 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 70 |
| 22377.0 | 1911-04-08 | 1915-01-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 95 |
| 22386.0 | 1911-04-17 | 1915-01-04 | 45.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 86 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W3148, 01/04/1915, CA2004.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3148 | 9 | 1915-01-04 | O, S |
01/04/1915 | 1 | 1915-01-04 | S |
CA2004 | 2 | 1900-11-26 | 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 2,194 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 1,199 AF — 55% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1966 | 2,926 | 9th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 170 | 29.0 |
| 1967 | 2,116 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 182 | 15.0 |
| 1968 | 5,334 | 15th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 196 | 39.0 |
| 1969 | 3,848 | 11th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 174 | 32.0 |
| 1970 | 4,217 | 12th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 163 | 38.0 |
| 1971 | 2,194 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 210 | 16.0 |
| 1972 | 1,216 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 141 | 12.0 |
| 1973 | 4,249 | 13th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 182 | 40.0 |
| 1974 | 1,663 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 176 | 15.0 |
| 1975 | 5,310 | 14th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 148 | 50.0 |
| 1976 | 1,946 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 152 | 21.0 |
| 1977 | 311 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 106 | 5.0 |
| 1998 | 316 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 63 | 3.0 |
| 2004 | 3,278 | 10th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 208 | 8.7 |
| 2006 | 1,199 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 122 | 12.4 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5373 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2006 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.