Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SINBAD RIDGE WELL NO. 1
Structure dossier · WDID 6305033 · 2 · SALT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:25 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 1920-11-01 — 228th 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: RED CROSS DITCH PT A (1918-06-15). Immediately behind: SINBAD RIDGE WELL NO. 2 (1920-11-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30079.25872 | 1920-11-01 | 1939-02-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 85 |
| 56669.0 | 2005-02-25 | 2005-12-31 | 0.0 | 1.0 | C | DOMPWR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
05CW0024, 89CW0095.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0024 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
89CW0095 | 1 | 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 95 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 18 AF — 19% of that, and 3rd 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 | 117 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 159 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 166 | 14th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 263 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 104 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 142 | 0.4 |
| 2014 | 193 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 204 | 0.9 |
| 2015 | 90 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 104 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 62 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 157 | 0.3 |
| 2017 | 120 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 217 | 0.5 |
| 2018 | 95 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 226 | 0.6 |
| 2019 | 31 | 4th lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 284 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 147 | 13th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 325 | 0.6 |
| 2021 | 99 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 251 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 65 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 75 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 365 | 0.7 |
| 2024 | 13 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 336 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 18 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 215 | 0.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-8 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4969 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1991-2025 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.