Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRIMES BROOKS R INTAKE D
Structure dossier · WDID 5300595 · 1 · SUTTON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1952-08-27 — 358th most senior of the 1231 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: CABIN CREEK BASIN DITCH (1952-08-21). Immediately behind: NORTH CEDAR NO 3 DITCH (1952-10-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37494.0 | 1952-08-27 | 1956-02-07 | 22.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 384 |
| 50038.49551 | 1985-08-31 | 1987-12-31 | 14.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOMPWRWLD |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
87CW0384, 02CW0062, CA1123.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
87CW0384 | 3 | 1987-12-31 | S |
02CW0062 | 1 | 1987-12-31 | S |
CA1123 | 2 | 1956-02-07 | 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 87 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 54 AF — 62% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 62 | 7th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 22 | 1.5 |
| 2007 | 143 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 25 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 166 | 13th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 37 | 2.3 |
| 2009 | 159 | 12th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 82 | 1.2 |
| 2010 | 89 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 10 | 5.0 |
| 2011 | 61 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 20 | 5.0 |
| 2013 | 40 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 21 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 108 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 22 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 38 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 16 | 2.6 |
| 2018 | 36 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 11 | 2.2 |
| 2019 | 171 | 14th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 31 | 2.9 |
| 2020 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 2 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 199 | 15th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 43 | 3.5 |
| 2023 | 87 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 17 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 54 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 14 | 2.5 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 811 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 8% of the irrigation seasons in 1977-2024 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.