Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COPPER MOUNTAIN METRO DISTRICT WELL NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 3605217 · 2 · WEST TENMILE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:36 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 1941-03-10 — 392nd 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: COPPER MTN STAFFORD LAKE PIPELINE (1941-03-10). Immediately behind: COPPER MOUNTAIN METRO DISTRICT WELL NO 3 (1941-03-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33306.0 | 1941-03-10 | 1952-03-10 | 1.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 353 |
| 50667.0 | 1988-09-20 | 1981-12-31 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOMSNOOTH | |
| 51804.0 | 1991-11-01 | 1981-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDFIRDOM |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
81CW0486, 17CW3063, 07CW0146.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
81CW0486 | 2 | 1981-12-31 | S |
17CW3063 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | S |
07CW0146 | 1 | 1952-03-10 | 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 11 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 35 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 69 AF — 197% of that, and 8th lowest of the 11 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 35 | 5th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 35 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 243 | 11th lowest of 11 · 694% of median | 228 | 2.3 |
| 2014 | 80 | 9th lowest of 11 · 229% of median | 304 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 19 | 4th lowest of 11 · 54% of median | 61 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 35 | 5th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 307 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 87 | 10th lowest of 11 · 249% of median | 319 | 0.7 |
| 2018 | 4 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 11% of median | 304 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 11 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 31% of median | 61 | 0.4 |
| 2020 | 42 | 7th lowest of 11 · 120% of median | 305 | 0.3 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 69 | 8th lowest of 11 · 197% of median | 305 | 0.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 2290 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 89% of the irrigation seasons in 2012-2024 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.