Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MACFARLANE RES
Structure dossier · WDID 4703614 · 3 · SOAP CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1910-10-20 — 460th 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: MASON DITCH (1910-09-07). Immediately behind: MARY ISH DITCH (1886-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22207.0 | 1910-10-20 | 1913-01-06 | 6507.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 2 |
| 49102.0 | 1984-06-08 | 1984-12-31 | 1787.0 | 5046.0 | A | STOIRRRECFISWLD |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
99CW0038, 99CW0036, 84CW0156, 06CW0042, 06CW0041, CA3571, CA2891.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0038 | 1 | 1984-12-31 | S |
99CW0036 | 1 | 1984-12-31 | S |
84CW0156 | 1 | 1984-12-31 | S |
06CW0042 | 1 | 1984-12-31 | S |
06CW0041 | 1 | 1984-12-31 | S |
CA3571 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA2891 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,568 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 1,472 AF — 94% of that, and 6th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | — | no recorded volume | 1,744 | 0 | — |
| 2004 | 3,129 | 13th lowest of 13 · 200% of median | — | 105 | 38.4 |
| 2005 | 224 | 1st lowest of 13 · 14% of median | 290 | 18 | 11.3 |
| 2006 | 858 | 4th lowest of 13 · 55% of median | 1,949 | 65 | 22.3 |
| 2007 | 621 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 40% of median | 1,184 | 48 | 8.6 |
| 2008 | 1,047 | 5th lowest of 13 · 67% of median | 1,210 | 50 | 15.2 |
| 2009 | 1,783 | 9th lowest of 13 · 114% of median | 2,879 | 122 | 27.0 |
| 2010 | 1,568 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 1,571 | 31 | 49.0 |
| 2011 | 791 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 50% of median | 1,197 | 45 | 27.0 |
| 2012 | 1,763 | 8th lowest of 13 · 112% of median | 1,432 | 107 | 18.1 |
| 2013 | 2,185 | 10th lowest of 13 · 139% of median | 1,866 | 47 | 62.6 |
| 2014 | 3,034 | 12th lowest of 13 · 194% of median | 4,816 | 65 | 41.9 |
| 2015 | 2,464 | 11th lowest of 13 · 157% of median | — | 30 | 42.8 |
| 2020 | 1,472 | 6th lowest of 13 · 94% of median | 2,121 | 44 | 27.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 777 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 2003-2020 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.