Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RATTLESNAKE DIVERSION
Structure dossier · WDID 3500702 · 1 · TRINCHERA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 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 1878-06-01 — 47th 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: SEYFRIED STRIBLING D (1878-06-01). Immediately behind: SMITH OVERFLOW DITCH (1878-06-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1899-12-15 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 32 |
| 18719.14396 | 1889-05-31 | 1901-04-03 | 5.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 381/4(4 |
| 18719.14396 | 1889-05-31 | 1901-04-03 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 381/2(4 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
87CW0013.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
87CW0013 | 4 | 1901-04-03 | O, 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 1,998 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,317 AF — 66% of that, and 5th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,036 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | — | 83 | 8.0 |
| 2010 | 874 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | — | 123 | 8.0 |
| 2012 | 1,203 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 388 | 153 | 9.8 |
| 2013 | 28 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | — | 6 | 2.8 |
| 2014 | 1,851 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 438 | 147 | 11.4 |
| 2015 | 2,078 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 508 | 153 | 16.2 |
| 2016 | 2,258 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 540 | 152 | 15.1 |
| 2017 | 3,043 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 723 | 159 | 23.0 |
| 2018 | 1,418 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 37 | 148 | 10.7 |
| 2019 | 2,668 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 732 | 150 | 16.1 |
| 2020 | 3,525 | 15th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | — | 202 | 13.8 |
| 2021 | 3,183 | 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 0 | 210 | 16.3 |
| 2022 | 1,998 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 198 | 11.0 |
| 2023 | 2,002 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 147 | 17.2 |
| 2024 | 1,317 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | — | 155 | 9.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+145 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5113 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2024 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.