Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOLEC SPRING & PIPELINE
Structure dossier · WDID 3801893 · 4 · RUEDI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:40 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 1979-07-07 — 3412th 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: CHAMBERLIN WELL (1977-09-21). Immediately behind: BABBISH GULCH RES/POND1 FEEDER DITCH (1981-06-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52230.47304 | 1979-07-07 | 1993-12-31 | 0.275 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISFIRDOMPWR | |
| 56978.53112 | 1995-06-01 | 2006-12-31 | 0.275 | 0.0 | C | PWR | |
| 57010.0 | 2006-02-01 | 2006-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.033 | C | DOM |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
06CW0016, 93CW0082.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0016 | 3 | 2006-12-31 | S |
93CW0082 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | 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 286 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 308 AF — 108% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 203 | 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 366 | 0.3 |
| 2001 | 151 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 304 | 0.3 |
| 2004 | 40 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 61 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 302 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 365 | 0.6 |
| 2006 | 247 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 304 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 43 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 61 | 0.4 |
| 2010 | 355 | 14th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 365 | 0.8 |
| 2011 | 403 | 15th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 365 | 0.9 |
| 2012 | 314 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 366 | 0.9 |
| 2013 | 323 | 13th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 0.9 |
| 2014 | 296 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 365 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 286 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 24 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 2018 | 263 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 365 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 308 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 304 | 0.8 |
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 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 | 6208 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1992-2019 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.