Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CEDAR PARK EXT A ENL D
Structure dossier · WDID 4001230 · 1 · DIRTY GEORGE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:27 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 1912-09-25 — 1362nd 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: CAN DITCH (1912-06-20). Immediately behind: BEUTEN DITCH (1913-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24894.22913 | 1912-09-25 | 1920-08-28 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | B39 |
| 31924.12929 | 1885-05-25 | 1954-03-20 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J22 |
| 31924.22912 | 1912-09-24 | 1954-03-20 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J149 |
| 56613.1455 | 1889-11-01 | 2005-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
18CW0039, 05CW0120, CA3503, CA1424.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
18CW0039 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
05CW0120 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
CA3503 | 2 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA1424 | 1 | 1920-08-28 | 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 3,869 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 4,134 AF — 107% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,477 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 259 | 12.4 |
| 2011 | 5,298 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 365 | 13.3 |
| 2012 | 3,377 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 296 | 10.7 |
| 2013 | 4,561 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 244 | 16.6 |
| 2014 | 3,942 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 343 | 13.0 |
| 2015 | 3,869 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 12.5 |
| 2016 | 3,598 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 213 | 15.1 |
| 2017 | 1,061 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 133 | 8.3 |
| 2018 | 647 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 187 | 5.0 |
| 2019 | 6,885 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 365 | 20.9 |
| 2020 | 1,054 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 204 | 15.8 |
| 2021 | 1,319 | 4th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 243 | 8.2 |
| 2022 | 7,568 | 15th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 355 | 24.8 |
| 2023 | 5,607 | 13th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 363 | 19.2 |
| 2024 | 4,134 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 291 | 13.3 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15994 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.