Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH FORK FEEDER CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 4000605 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:56 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 1946-09-03 — 1958th most senior of the 4661 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: ASPEN CANAL (1946-09-03). Immediately behind: CRAWFORD RESERVOIR (1946-09-03).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38064.35309 | 1946-09-03 | 1964-01-31 | 85.62 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | K79 |
| 47847.47095 | 1978-12-10 | 1981-12-31 | 64.38 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | |
| 63187.60957 | 2016-11-22 | 2023-12-31 | 0.0 | 50.0 | C | STOIRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
23CW0037, 81CW0074, CA4808.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
23CW0037 | 1 | 2023-12-31 | S |
81CW0074 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | S |
CA4808 | 3 | 1964-01-31 | 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 6,202 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 5,584 AF — 90% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 3,732 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 134 | 91.0 |
| 2011 | 7,475 | 13th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 95 | 84.0 |
| 2012 | 2,424 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | — | 29 | 64.0 |
| 2013 | 6,244 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 85 | 97.0 |
| 2014 | 7,128 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | — | 132 | 124.0 |
| 2015 | 6,292 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 202 | 80.0 |
| 2016 | 6,202 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 205 | 83.0 |
| 2017 | 6,975 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 167 | 85.0 |
| 2018 | 3,871 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | — | 155 | 55.0 |
| 2019 | 11,177 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | — | 218 | 112.0 |
| 2020 | 3,805 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | — | 166 | 83.0 |
| 2021 | 2,925 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | — | 184 | 52.2 |
| 2022 | 4,156 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | — | 194 | 98.0 |
| 2023 | 11,069 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | — | 213 | 102.5 |
| 2024 | 5,584 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 93 | 99.9 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5639 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 50% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2024 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.