Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRAVES NO 1 SPRING
Structure dossier · WDID 5101187 · 4 · SKUNK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1946-08-10 — 1093rd 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: MCQUEARY SPRING NO 3 (1910-12-31). Immediately behind: CALLAHAN SPRING (1950-01-23).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47116.35285 | 1946-08-10 | 1979-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | |
| 53849.0 | 1997-06-07 | 1997-12-31 | 0.24 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
97CW0247, 13CW0038, 04CW0090, 79CW0337.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
97CW0247 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
13CW0038 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
04CW0090 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
79CW0337 | 2 | 1979-12-31 | 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 57 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 69 AF — 121% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 121 | 15th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 184 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 95 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 170 | 0.5 |
| 1999 | 55 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 94 | 0.3 |
| 2000 | 59 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 131 | 0.3 |
| 2001 | 3 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 23 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 77 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 190 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 28 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 172 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 70 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 148 | 0.2 |
| 2006 | 57 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 148 | 0.3 |
| 2007 | 54 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 137 | 0.4 |
| 2008 | 79 | 13th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 75 | 0.8 |
| 2009 | 47 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 54 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 38 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 57 | 0.3 |
| 2011 | 57 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 0.5 |
| 2012 | 69 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 113 | 0.5 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3922 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 71% of the irrigation seasons in 1986-2012 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.