Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UTE CREEK NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 3600849 · 1 · SQUAW CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:06 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 1880-06-01 — 28th most senior of the 1247 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: KUMNIG NO 1 DITCH AP NO 1 (1878-07-15). Immediately behind: UTE CREEK NO 2 (1880-06-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11110.0 | 1880-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 5 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1277.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 215 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 171 AF — 80% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 703 | 13th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | 64 | 7.5 |
| 1995 | 120 | 6th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 65 | 4.0 |
| 1996 | 534 | 11th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 49 | 13.0 |
| 1997 | 933 | 15th lowest of 15 · 434% of median | 59 | 9.9 |
| 1998 | 689 | 12th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 82 | 13.0 |
| 1999 | 351 | 9th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 66 | 3.5 |
| 2000 | 437 | 10th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 84 | 5.0 |
| 2001 | 215 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 2.5 |
| 2002 | 858 | 14th lowest of 15 · 399% of median | 60 | 9.8 |
| 2003 | 19 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 10 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 8 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 48 | 4th lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 29 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 25 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 72 | 5th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 36 | 1.0 |
| 2015 | 171 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 62 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-42 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 2735 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2015 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.