Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS YAMPA RIVER MUNICIPAL
Structure dossier · WDID 5805055 · 2 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 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 1975-08-25 — 1244th 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: WANDA SPRING (1975-04-02). Immediately behind: RIVERSIDE W&S WELL 2 (1975-08-25).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45892.0 | 1975-08-25 | 1975-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | |
| 51494.0 | 1990-12-26 | 1990-12-31 | 0.0 | 2800.0 | A | IRRMUNCOMINDRECDOM | |
| 51494.0 | 1990-12-26 | 1990-12-31 | 2.0 | 4.67 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECDOM | |
| 58408.0 | 2009-11-30 | 2009-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | AUG | |
| 58408.0 | 2009-11-30 | 2009-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
20CW3038, 09CW0062, 90CW0160, 04CW0035, 93CW0122.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3038 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | O |
09CW0062 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | O |
90CW0160 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
04CW0035 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
93CW0122 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | 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 245 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 135 AF — 55% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 309 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 160 | 1.9 |
| 1995 | 58 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 99 | 0.5 |
| 1996 | 80 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 123 | 0.7 |
| 1997 | 64 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 125 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 108 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 130 | 1.3 |
| 1999 | 282 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 130 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 372 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 160 | 2.5 |
| 2001 | 332 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 335 | 1.9 |
| 2002 | 264 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 276 | 1.5 |
| 2003 | 629 | 15th lowest of 15 · 257% of median | 306 | 3.2 |
| 2004 | 155 | 6th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 188 | 1.1 |
| 2005 | 223 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 130 | 1.7 |
| 2006 | 245 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 128 | 1.4 |
| 2007 | 280 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 123 | 2.2 |
| 2015 | 135 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 101 | 1.8 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5068 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1981-2015 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.