Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KREMMLING NORTH FEEDER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300669 · 1 · SHEEP CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:16 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 1966-08-29 — 487th 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: HARPER SPRINGS PIPELINE (1966-07-30). Immediately behind: KAYSER IRR WELL NO 1 (1966-09-05).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42609.0 | 1966-08-29 | 1967-09-13 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDFIRDOMPWR | 524 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1416.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1416 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 209 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 450 AF — 215% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 834 | 15th lowest of 15 · 399% of median | 58 | 18.0 |
| 1997 | 325 | 10th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 54 | 4.2 |
| 1998 | 73 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 22 | 2.8 |
| 2000 | 110 | 6th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 45 | 2.3 |
| 2001 | 31 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 39 | 0.8 |
| 2002 | 80 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 44 | 1.9 |
| 2003 | 311 | 9th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 109 | 4.9 |
| 2004 | 116 | 7th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 214 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 67 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 18 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 506 | 13th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 110 | 5.2 |
| 2007 | 42 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 15 | 1.5 |
| 2008 | 610 | 14th lowest of 15 · 292% of median | 118 | 7.0 |
| 2009 | 209 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 65 | 3.1 |
| 2010 | 370 | 11th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 115 | 6.3 |
| 2015 | 450 | 12th lowest of 15 · 215% of median | 181 | 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2441 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2015 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.