Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRAIG WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Structure dossier · WDID 4400581 · 8 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:45 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 1884-05-13 — 13th most senior of the 3562 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: ELMER BERTHA MACK PUMP (1883-08-20). Immediately behind: DEEP CUT IRRIGATING DITCH (1884-05-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12552.0 | 1884-05-13 | 1892-09-22 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | MUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 8 |
| 12754.0 | 1884-12-01 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 11 |
| 14700.0 | 1890-03-31 | 1892-09-22 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | MUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 49 |
| 36295.24105 | 1915-12-31 | 1960-09-01 | 7.92 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 34 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W0822-75, CA1278, W0823-75, W0821-75, W0820-75.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0822-75 | 1 | 1960-09-01 | S |
CA1278 | 2 | 1960-09-01 | S |
W0823-75 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
W0821-75 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
W0820-75 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
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 1,991 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 1,985 AF — 100% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 2,088 | 12th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 365 | 5.4 |
| 1999 | 1,826 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 365 | 5.0 |
| 2000 | 1,967 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 366 | 5.6 |
| 2001 | 2,000 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 5.5 |
| 2002 | 2,243 | 15th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 6.4 |
| 2003 | 2,082 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 365 | 6.4 |
| 2004 | 1,991 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 5.2 |
| 2005 | 1,935 | 5th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 365 | 5.6 |
| 2006 | 2,203 | 14th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 365 | 6.6 |
| 2007 | 2,107 | 13th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 365 | 7.4 |
| 2008 | 2,051 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 366 | 6.4 |
| 2009 | 1,865 | 4th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 365 | 5.8 |
| 2010 | 1,798 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 304 | 5.6 |
| 2011 | 177 | 1st lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 61 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 1,985 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 305 | 8.0 |
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 | 14961 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 87% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2012 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.