IND P TM DVR N YORK HGT3 ☆ My Water

The record and the river

Current administration

● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (30 active call(s) checked).

21 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way.

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: no call in the record verifiably applies to this district (statements and caller locations checked). Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1930-08-23 — 619th most senior of the 4793 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: IND P TM DVR N YORK HGT2 (1930-08-23)☆. Immediately behind: IND P TM DVR LOST MAN (1930-08-23)☆.

On LINCOLN CREEK at river mile 6.6, it is 6th of 8 down the reach. Immediately upstream: IND P TM DVR LINCOLN CR☆. Immediately downstream: IND P TM DVR N YORK HGT2☆.

Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.

Decreed rights (3)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 210.0 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 100.126 cfs in priority (48% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 40.0% of days.

On 167 days some rights were in priority and others were not — seniority splits a decree rather than switching it off. Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it. A call began or ended mid-day on 22 of these days.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

6 decreed actions on record across 6 court cases: 95CW0321, W1869, 86CW0155, 82CW0151, W0722, CA3082.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 3801766 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Water-court filings naming this structure

1 application in the monthly water-court resumes explicitly reference this WDID. The resume is the earliest public notice of a new claim (C.R.S. 37-92-302) — years before anything reaches the decree record below. Most applications name structures by name rather than WDID, so absence here is weak evidence of absence.

Source: Judicial Branch combined monthly resumes (archive), indexed nightly; WDIDs attached only when a 7-digit token in the filing matches DWR’s structure inventory.

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 4 court cases that also touched 5 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

Also a party to 1 omnibus adjudication (CA3082, 209 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

Recorded use (last 12 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 5,777 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 5,601 AF — 97% of that, and 5th lowest of the 12 years with a recorded volume.

Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 30.2% of a median season / 0.0% dry-year.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.

Its reference gage, Roaring Fork River above Lost Man Cr near Aspen: no clear flow trend.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (8/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.