Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KING D 1 AND 2 HG ALT 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4300689 · 1 · PICEANCE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1896-05-01 — 986th most senior of the 3293 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: GARDENHEIR DITCH (1895-03-05). Immediately behind: KING DITCH 1 (1896-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32172.16923 | 1896-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 371 |
| 32172.2347 | 1914-04-05 | 1942-05-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 451R |
| 32172.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 467-Q, 467 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
92CW0245.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
92CW0245 | 4 | 1942-05-26 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 120 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 3 AF — 2% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 306 | 12th lowest of 13 · 255% of median | 176 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 14 | 4th lowest of 13 · 12% of median | 16 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 209 | 11th lowest of 13 · 174% of median | 212 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 57 | 5th lowest of 13 · 48% of median | 131 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 124 | 8th lowest of 13 · 103% of median | 82 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 120 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 136 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 156 | 9th lowest of 13 · 130% of median | 54 | 1.8 |
| 2012 | 101 | 6th lowest of 13 · 84% of median | 36 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 2 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 2% of median | 6 | 0.2 |
| 2015 | 1,806 | 13th lowest of 13 · 1505% of median | 179 | 5.5 |
| 2016 | 156 | 9th lowest of 13 · 130% of median | 33 | 4.2 |
| 2018 | 3 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 2% of median | 2 | 1.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 1067 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 2005-2018 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.