Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WILLIAMS NO 1 D CAP CR
Structure dossier · WDID 3801095 · 1 · CAPITOL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:52 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 1881-07-01 — 261st most senior of the 4788 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: WILLIAMS NO 2 DITCH (1880-06-07). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS NO 4 DITCH (1883-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19145.11505 | 1881-07-01 | 1902-06-21 | 15.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14A |
| 49338.0 | 1985-01-30 | 1985-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
91CW0171, 04CW0177, CA0968.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
91CW0171 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
04CW0177 | 2 | 1985-12-31 | S |
CA0968 | 1 | 1902-06-21 | 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 1,112 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 1,047 AF — 94% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | 964 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 107 | 6.0 |
| 1983 | 1,654 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 139 | 6.0 |
| 1984 | 202 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 170 | 0.6 |
| 1985 | 146 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 124 | 0.6 |
| 1987 | 764 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 142 | 2.7 |
| 1988 | 1,530 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 138 | 8.6 |
| 1989 | 1,698 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 142 | 6.9 |
| 1990 | 618 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 147 | 4.5 |
| 1991 | 1,133 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 172 | 3.7 |
| 1992 | 1,112 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 206 | 3.2 |
| 1993 | 2,497 | 15th lowest of 15 · 225% of median | 351 | 10.2 |
| 1994 | 2,275 | 14th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 304 | 5.7 |
| 1995 | 1,012 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 181 | 3.5 |
| 1999 | 1,452 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 62 | 12.0 |
| 2006 | 1,047 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 69 | 7.8 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3396 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 51% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2006 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.