Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SILVER SPUR DIVERSION NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5101170 · 1 · SKUNK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:13 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1946-08-01 — 1164th most senior of the 2208 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: SILVER SPUR DIVERSION NO 1 (1946-08-01). Immediately behind: HOLLEY WELL NO 1 (1960-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47847.35276 | 1946-08-01 | 1981-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 54786.53843 | 1997-06-01 | 2000-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISSTK | |
| 62456.0 | 2020-12-30 | 2020-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | FISSTK | |
| 62456.0 | 2020-12-30 | 2020-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | FISSTK |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
20CW3176, 13CW0038, 00CW0254, 81CW0013.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3176 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | O |
13CW0038 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
00CW0254 | 2 | 2000-12-31 | S |
81CW0013 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | 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 432 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 455 AF — 105% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 255 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | — | 126 | 1.8 |
| 2011 | 332 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 80 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 222 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | — | 145 | 1.2 |
| 2013 | 241 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 90 | 3.8 |
| 2014 | 333 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 139 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 584 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 182 | 3.4 |
| 2016 | 418 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 115 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 655 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 655 | 151 | 2.2 |
| 2018 | 312 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | — | 71 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 636 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | — | 190 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 478 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 170 | 3.5 |
| 2021 | 565 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | — | 238 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | 702 | 15th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | — | 283 | 6.0 |
| 2023 | 432 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 172 | 3.0 |
| 2024 | 455 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | — | 180 | 3.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+20 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 5192 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 60% of the irrigation seasons in 1984-2024 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.