Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SUMMIT RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 7103619 · 3 · LOST CANYON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1905-03-01 — 64th most senior of the 279 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: A M PUETT RESERVOIR (1904-11-28). Immediately behind: GROUNDHOG RESERVOIR (1905-08-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20148.0 | 1905-03-01 | 1933-12-18 | 3013.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | D-3R |
| 20954.0 | 1907-05-16 | 1933-12-18 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRDOMOTH | D-6R |
| 32476.0 | 1938-12-01 | 1963-03-22 | 1274.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRDOMOTH | 62-9R |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0672, CA0967, 84CW0176.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0672 | 1 | 1963-03-22 | S |
CA0967 | 5 | 1963-03-22 | S |
84CW0176 | 1 | 1933-12-18 | 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 3,101 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,937 AF — 62% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4,469 | 15th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 2,985 | 135 | 61.9 |
| 2012 | 3,521 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 3,105 | 61 | 78.3 |
| 2013 | 2,669 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 2,184 | 266 | 68.4 |
| 2014 | 3,346 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 2,948 | 198 | 97.8 |
| 2015 | 4,206 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 2,514 | 271 | 72.4 |
| 2016 | 3,543 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 3,249 | 353 | 63.8 |
| 2017 | 2,861 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 3,382 | 258 | 44.7 |
| 2018 | 1,221 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 791 | 181 | 28.3 |
| 2019 | 3,101 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 2,707 | 96 | 60.3 |
| 2020 | 2,463 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 1,553 | 132 | 87.9 |
| 2021 | 2,037 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 1,528 | 265 | 52.4 |
| 2022 | 3,569 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 2,632 | 365 | 82.0 |
| 2023 | 4,281 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 2,941 | 365 | 72.9 |
| 2024 | 2,638 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 2,134 | 366 | 78.6 |
| 2025 | 1,937 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 2,365 | 304 | 65.3 |
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 (7/10 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 | 3627 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-2025 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.