Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GUMPRECHT WILKINS SEEP 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5800985 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1938-10-07 — 691st most senior of the 3097 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: BEN T HIBBERT D (1934-06-01). Immediately behind: GUMPRECHT WILKINS SEEP 1 (1938-10-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35320.32421 | 1938-10-07 | 1953-03-09 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 381A |
| 58804.5435 | 1998-10-21 | 2011-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | OTH |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
11CW0040, CA2613, 11CW0037.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0040 | 2 | 2011-12-31 | S |
CA2613 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | S |
11CW0037 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | 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 346 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 448 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 57 | 5.0 |
| 1991 | 418 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 49 | 5.9 |
| 1992 | 474 | 14th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 74 | 5.0 |
| 1993 | 450 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 60 | 5.0 |
| 1994 | 341 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 73 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 220 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 170 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 274 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 66 | 2.8 |
| 2014 | 338 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 63 | 2.8 |
| 2015 | 134 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 31 | 2.8 |
| 2016 | 346 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 71 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 366 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 78 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 332 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 117 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 655 | 15th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 57 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 363 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 52 | 4.5 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1740 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 11% of the irrigation seasons in 1954-2025 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.