Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DAKOTA RIDGE WATER SUPPLY WELL
Structure dossier · WDID 5805065 · 2 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:14 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 1933-07-01 — 840th 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: BARNES SPRING NO. 3 AP 2 (1933-07-01). Immediately behind: SARAH SPRING 2 (1933-07-04).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41727.30497 | 1933-07-01 | 1972-05-30 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 17A |
| 51134.48496 | 1982-10-11 | 1990-12-31 | 0.5568 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIRDOMSTK | |
| 56613.54538 | 1999-04-27 | 2005-12-31 | 0.033 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
11CW0020, 05CW0016, 90CW0165, 22CW3106.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0020 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
05CW0016 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
90CW0165 | 3 | 1990-12-31 | S |
22CW3106 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 46 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 51 AF — 111% of that, and 10th lowest of the 12 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 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 1997 | 7 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 15% of median | 365 | 0.0 |
| 1998 | 32 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 70% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 1999 | 43 | 4th lowest of 12 · 94% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2000 | 44 | 5th lowest of 12 · 96% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 2001 | 56 | 12th lowest of 12 · 122% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 48 | 8th lowest of 12 · 104% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 46 | 6th lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 46 | 6th lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 366 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 48 | 8th lowest of 12 · 104% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 52 | 11th lowest of 12 · 113% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2007 | 51 | 10th lowest of 12 · 111% of median | 304 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 12 recorded years (+2 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 | 4017 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2025 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.