Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRAVES NO 3 SPRING
Structure dossier · WDID 5101304 · 4 · SKUNK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:14 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 — 1298th 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: HENDERSON SPRING NO 1 (1926-12-31). Immediately behind: MIN FLOW DROWSY WATER CR (1986-03-14).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49673.35276 | 1946-08-01 | 1986-12-31 | 0.283 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 49854.0 | 1986-06-30 | 1986-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 62456.0 | 2020-12-30 | 2020-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | FISSTK | |
| 62456.0 | 2020-12-30 | 2020-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | FISSTK |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
20CW3176, 96CW0361, 86CW0172.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3176 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | O |
96CW0361 | 1 | 1986-12-31 | S |
86CW0172 | 3 | 1986-12-31 | 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, 2024, came in at 161 AF — 282% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 24 | 5th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | — | 54 | 0.3 |
| 2010 | 17 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | — | 126 | 0.1 |
| 2011 | 18 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | — | 73 | 0.1 |
| 2012 | 75 | 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | — | 113 | 0.5 |
| 2013 | 88 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | — | 87 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 57 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 60 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 42 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | — | 31 | 0.7 |
| 2016 | 20 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | — | 47 | 0.2 |
| 2017 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 9 | 112 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 26 | 6th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | — | 60 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 92 | 14th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | — | 103 | 0.6 |
| 2020 | 74 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 169 | 0.4 |
| 2021 | 85 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | — | 167 | 0.4 |
| 2022 | 65 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | — | 143 | 0.7 |
| 2024 | 161 | 15th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | — | 154 | 1.0 |
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 (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 | 3633 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1994-2024 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.