Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NEWTON D HANNAH-THOMPSON
Structure dossier · WDID 3500650 · 1 · UTE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:40 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 1876-04-01 — 42nd 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 01 (1875-12-31). Immediately behind: HULL D (1877-05-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9588.0 | 1876-04-01 | 1899-12-15 | 1.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 13971.0 | 1888-04-01 | 1899-12-15 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 41 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0400, 09/02/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0400 | 4 | 1899-12-15 | O |
09/02/1902 | 2 | 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 283 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 301 AF — 106% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 242 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 53 | 3.0 |
| 1988 | 180 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 50 | 3.0 |
| 1989 | 148 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 47 | 3.0 |
| 1990 | 283 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 78 | 3.0 |
| 2006 | 34 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 15 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 282 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 318 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 87 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 292 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 92 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 455 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 140 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 426 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 122 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 606 | 14th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 183 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 629 | 15th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 191 | 1.7 |
| 2022 | 242 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 80 | 1.7 |
| 2023 | 242 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 76 | 1.7 |
| 2024 | 301 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 95 | 1.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1732 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% of the irrigation seasons in 1982-2024 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.