Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UNAWEEP CATTLE RANGE D 2
Structure dossier · WDID 6300565 · 1 · GILL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1910-05-01 — 218th most senior of the 533 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: L L HALL DITCH (1910-03-15). Immediately behind: LONE OAK DITCH NO 2 (1911-07-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30079.22035 | 1910-05-01 | 1939-02-11 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 61 |
| 32096.0 | 1937-11-16 | 1939-02-11 | 0.26 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 113 |
| 32547.0 | 1939-02-10 | 1939-02-11 | 3.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0140, CA4952.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0140 | 2 | 1939-02-11 | S |
CA4952 | 4 | 1939-02-11 | 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 412 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 144 AF — 35% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 891 | 15th lowest of 15 · 216% of median | 124 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 108 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 42 | 2.5 |
| 2013 | 84 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 50 | 2.3 |
| 2014 | 118 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 64 | 4.5 |
| 2015 | 267 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 89 | 2.7 |
| 2016 | 304 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 75 | 5.7 |
| 2017 | 412 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 104 | 3.5 |
| 2018 | 605 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 83 | 5.1 |
| 2019 | 437 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 106 | 3.8 |
| 2020 | 476 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 137 | 5.1 |
| 2021 | 345 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 94 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 539 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 137 | 6.5 |
| 2023 | 505 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 160 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 535 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 145 | 4.5 |
| 2025 | 144 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 67 | 2.1 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4820 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 49% of the irrigation seasons in 1979-2025 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.