Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COALBY DOMESTIC CO PL
Structure dossier · WDID 4001238 · 7 · WARD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1973-01-15 — 2345th 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: LEMOINE SPRING D & PL (1971-03-31). Immediately behind: BOUCHARD DRAINLINE PUMP (1973-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45290.4494 | 1973-01-15 | 1974-12-31 | 0.47 | 0.0 | C | FIRDOMSTK | |
| 53325.44984 | 1973-02-28 | 1996-12-31 | 0.05 | 0.0 | C | FIRDOM | |
| 53325.52595 | 1993-12-31 | 1996-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | FIRDOM |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
99CW0235, 96CW0266, 93CW0241, W2208, 93CW0238.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0235 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
96CW0266 | 2 | 1996-12-31 | S |
93CW0241 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
W2208 | 4 | 1974-12-31 | S |
93CW0238 | 2 | 1974-12-31 | 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 30 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 19 AF — 63% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 29 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2010 | 30 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2011 | 39 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2012 | 34 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | — | 366 | 0.1 |
| 2013 | 28 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2014 | 31 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 304 | 0.2 |
| 2015 | 21 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | — | 304 | 0.1 |
| 2016 | 30 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 364 | 0.1 |
| 2017 | 24 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 364 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 25 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | — | 304 | 0.1 |
| 2020 | 78 | 14th lowest of 15 · 260% of median | — | 255 | 0.2 |
| 2021 | 157 | 15th lowest of 15 · 523% of median | — | 304 | 0.4 |
| 2022 | 38 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | — | 275 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 26 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2024 | 19 | 1st lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 261 | 0.1 |
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 | 16812 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.