Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NOTTINGHAM PUMP NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5200733 · 8 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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 1888-04-15 — 14th most senior of the 562 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: NOTTINGHAM PUMP (1888-04-15). Immediately behind: LITTLE COTTONWOOD DITCH (1888-05-01).
Decreed rights (15)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13985.0 | 1888-04-15 | 1890-11-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 14163.0 | 1888-10-10 | 1890-11-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 86 |
| 14774.0 | 1890-06-13 | 1890-11-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115 |
| 20427.19199 | 1902-07-26 | 1907-12-09 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181 |
| 20427.19244 | 1902-09-09 | 1907-12-09 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUG | 182 |
| 33023.26662 | 1922-12-31 | 1956-02-07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 321 |
| 37703.0 | 1953-03-24 | 1956-02-07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 395 |
| 41199.33541 | 1941-10-31 | 1967-09-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUG | 467 |
| 41199.41027 | 1962-04-30 | 1967-09-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUG | 492 |
| 42138.0 | 1965-05-15 | 1967-09-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUG | 499 |
| 42494.0 | 1966-05-06 | 1967-09-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUG | 503 |
| 42564.0 | 1966-07-15 | 1967-09-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 519 |
| 51665.0 | 1991-06-15 | 1991-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 54267.0 | 1998-07-30 | 1998-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMDOMSTK | |
| 55020.0 | 2000-08-21 | 1998-12-31 | 0.0 | 3.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
27 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
98CW0134, 91CW0101, 90CW0147.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0134 | 25 | 1998-12-31 | O, S |
91CW0101 | 1 | 1991-12-31 | S |
90CW0147 | 1 | 1967-09-13 | 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 8 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,089 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 8 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 1,087 | 4th lowest of 8 · 100% of median | 138 | 4.0 |
| 1997 | 1,325 | 6th lowest of 8 · 122% of median | 168 | 4.0 |
| 2002 | 1,333 | 7th lowest of 8 · 122% of median | 169 | 4.0 |
| 2003 | 1,713 | 8th lowest of 8 · 157% of median | 158 | 5.5 |
| 2004 | 562 | 3rd lowest of 8 · 52% of median | 128 | 2.2 |
| 2005 | 1,091 | 5th lowest of 8 · 100% of median | 118 | 5.5 |
| 2006 | 35 | 2nd lowest of 8 · 3% of median | 5 | 4.4 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 8 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 8 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 | 15 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 888 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2008 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.