Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MEADOW CREEK RES
Structure dossier · WDID 4704335 · 3 · MEADOW CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:23 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 1975-02-15 — 766th 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: NORTH PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT WELL (1974-07-10). Immediately behind: JACK CREEK RANCH WELL (1920-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45701.0 | 1975-02-15 | 1975-12-31 | 1090.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNINDRECFISSTK | |
| 46505.0 | 1977-04-29 | 1977-12-31 | 3939.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNINDRECFISSTK | |
| 50403.48797 | 1983-08-08 | 1988-12-31 | 1150.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNINDRECFISDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
88CW0020, W1196-77, 92CW0069, 82CW0090, W0824-75, 83CW0010, 81CW0194.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0020 | 3 | 1988-12-31 | S |
W1196-77 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
92CW0069 | 2 | 1977-12-31 | S |
82CW0090 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
W0824-75 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | S |
83CW0010 | 2 | 1975-12-31 | S |
81CW0194 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 576 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 586 AF — 102% of that, and 6th lowest of the 10 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 335 | 4th lowest of 10 · 58% of median | 2,921 | 56 | 8.8 |
| 2005 | 887 | 7th lowest of 10 · 154% of median | 1,155 | 26 | 35.2 |
| 2006 | 565 | 5th lowest of 10 · 98% of median | 3,667 | 87 | 5.7 |
| 2007 | 176 | 1st lowest of 10 · 31% of median | 1,760 | 19 | 5.8 |
| 2008 | 217 | 2nd lowest of 10 · 38% of median | 1,033 | 9 | 14.0 |
| 2009 | 1,306 | 8th lowest of 10 · 227% of median | 987 | 71 | 32.0 |
| 2010 | — | no recorded volume | 700 | 0 | — |
| 2011 | — | no recorded volume | 270 | 0 | — |
| 2012 | 2,974 | 9th lowest of 10 · 517% of median | 4,195 | 117 | 34.1 |
| 2013 | 3,066 | 10th lowest of 10 · 533% of median | 1,552 | 150 | 32.2 |
| 2015 | 235 | 3rd lowest of 10 · 41% of median | 119 | 17 | 11.4 |
| 2020 | 586 | 6th lowest of 10 · 102% of median | — | 45 | 26.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 10 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 | 597 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 17% of the irrigation seasons in 2004-2020 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.