Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TRAIL & CASTLE CR CONSOL
Structure dossier · WDID 5200762 · 1 · PINEY RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:39 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 1889-08-29 — 26th 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: HOG EYE DITCH AP (1889-06-15). Immediately behind: KUHN DITCH (1889-08-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14486.0 | 1889-08-29 | 1890-11-20 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 26978.25322 | 1919-05-01 | 1925-03-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 33054.0 | 1940-07-01 | 1946-08-30 | 4.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 201 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
90CW0152.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
90CW0152 | 3 | 1946-08-30 | O, 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 179 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 81 AF — 45% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 81 | 0.5 |
| 2005 | 452 | 15th lowest of 15 · 252% of median | 80 | 3.1 |
| 2006 | 315 | 13th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 71 | 2.4 |
| 2008 | 132 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 54 | 1.4 |
| 2009 | 103 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 135 | 7th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 69 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 382 | 14th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 75 | 2.7 |
| 2012 | 66 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 49 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 212 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 64 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 275 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 89 | 2.9 |
| 2016 | 238 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 116 | 1.6 |
| 2017 | 179 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 55 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 262 | 11th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 69 | 3.4 |
| 2021 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 14 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 81 | 4th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 12 | 4.0 |
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 (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 | 1189 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1999-2024 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.