Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UPPER COTTONWOOD CR INTK
Structure dossier · WDID 7201561 · 7 · RAPID CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 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 1886-05-01 — 267th most senior of the 2166 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: MIDDLE COTTONWOOD CR INT (1886-05-01). Immediately behind: CRUZEN SPRING NO 1 (1886-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24471.1327 | 1886-05-01 | 1917-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDDOM | 341 |
| 25210.1327 | 1886-05-01 | 1919-02-14 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDDOM | 342 |
| 34419.27007 | 1923-12-11 | 1959-07-21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 669 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
86CW0320.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
86CW0320 | 3 | 1959-07-21 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 59 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 384 AF — 651% of that, and 13th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2002 | 18 | 6th lowest of 14 · 30% of median | 23 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 94 | 9th lowest of 14 · 159% of median | 32 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 8 | 5th lowest of 14 · 14% of median | 304 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 76 | 8th lowest of 14 · 129% of median | 304 | 9.9 |
| 2018 | 42 | 7th lowest of 14 · 71% of median | 9 | 8.1 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 134 | 10th lowest of 14 · 227% of median | 28 | 3.9 |
| 2021 | 162 | 11th lowest of 14 · 275% of median | 68 | 8.0 |
| 2022 | 600 | 14th lowest of 14 · 1017% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 366 | 12th lowest of 14 · 620% of median | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 384 | 13th lowest of 14 · 651% of median | 305 | 1.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 14 recorded years (+17 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.006).
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 | 1928 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 2001-2024 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.