Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TAYLOR RIVER AND TRIBS
Structure dossier · WDID 5901273 · MF · TAYLOR RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:48 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1910-06-01 — 1189th most senior of the 2360 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: SHADY LANE SPR NO3 DITCH (1906-05-01). Immediately behind: LOTTIS LAKE (1910-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44925.22066 | 1910-06-01 | 1973-12-31 | 445.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISSTK |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
W1991.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1991 | 1 | 1973-12-31 | 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 110,007 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 106,401 AF — 97% of that, and 7th 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 | 175,308 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 366 | 445.0 |
| 1997 | 157,027 | 13th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 304 | 445.0 |
| 1998 | 11,857 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 61 | 98.0 |
| 1999 | 145,567 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 365 | 445.0 |
| 2000 | 127,997 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 366 | 1203.0 |
| 2001 | 110,007 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 368.0 |
| 2002 | 84,235 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 365 | 284.0 |
| 2003 | 82,095 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 365 | 251.0 |
| 2004 | 99,599 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 305 | 306.0 |
| 2005 | 8,975 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 61 | 77.0 |
| 2006 | 114,601 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 365 | 445.0 |
| 2007 | 95,781 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 365 | 445.0 |
| 2008 | 168,691 | 14th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 366 | 445.0 |
| 2009 | 143,671 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 365 | 445.0 |
| 2010 | 106,401 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 304 | 351.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 5844 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1992-2010 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.