Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POLE MTN RES FEEDER D
Structure dossier · WDID 4700838 · 1 · MEXICAN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:51 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 1962-06-11 — 624th most senior of the 1262 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: CEMETERY PUMP STATION (1961-10-10). Immediately behind: POLE MOUNTAIN RES (1962-06-11).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43829.41069 | 1962-06-11 | 1970-12-31 | 35.0 | 25.0 | C | IRR | |
| 43829.41825 | 1964-07-06 | 1970-12-31 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0036-75, W0036-70, W0034-70.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0036-75 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
W0036-70 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
W0034-70 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | 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 547 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 571 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 42 | 8.8 |
| 1979 | 840 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 48 | 12.7 |
| 1980 | 547 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 32 | 8.9 |
| 1982 | 952 | 15th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 32 | 16.0 |
| 2000 | 680 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 52 | 35.0 |
| 2001 | 530 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 53 | 15.0 |
| 2002 | 8 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 18 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 495 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 50 | 14.0 |
| 2004 | 465 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 38 | 17.0 |
| 2005 | 586 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 39 | 12.0 |
| 2006 | 207 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 35 | 6.3 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 769 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 32 | 12.5 |
| 2019 | 557 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 38 | 7.8 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 601 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 5% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2024 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.