Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VASPEN SPRING
Structure dossier · WDID 5300828 · 4 · SWEETWATER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:38 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 1956-06-15 — 382nd 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: TONIER GULCH RESERVOIR (1946-06-01). Immediately behind: ARTESIAN WELL (1957-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38882.0 | 1956-06-15 | 1962-10-19 | 0.5 | 1.0 | C | IRR | 423 |
| 40796.0 | 1961-09-11 | 1962-10-19 | 0.0 | 2.0 | C | DOM | 446 |
| 56603.0 | 2004-12-21 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISFIRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
10CW0308, CA1277.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0308 | 7 | 2004-12-31 | S |
CA1277 | 3 | 1962-10-19 | 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 67 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2002, came in at 16 AF — 24% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 215 | 12th lowest of 15 · 321% of median | 125 | 1.0 |
| 1989 | 147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 75 | 1.0 |
| 1990 | 224 | 13th lowest of 15 · 334% of median | 114 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 237 | 14th lowest of 15 · 354% of median | 144 | 1.8 |
| 1992 | 89 | 9th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 46 | 1.0 |
| 1993 | 326 | 15th lowest of 15 · 487% of median | 153 | 1.5 |
| 1994 | 67 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 241 | 0.3 |
| 1995 | 130 | 10th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 1996 | 37 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 336 | 0.1 |
| 1997 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 275 | 0.1 |
| 1998 | 44 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1999 | 46 | 7th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 335 | 0.1 |
| 2000 | 42 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 215 | 0.1 |
| 2001 | 36 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 184 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 16 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 85 | 0.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-13 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3947 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2002 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.