Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FRUITA WATER WORKS PL
Structure dossier · WDID 7300507 · 7 · HAY PRESS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1885-03-31 — 1st most senior of the 221 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 behind: UPPER SAXBURY DITCH (1885-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12874.0 | 1885-03-31 | 1910-07-02 | 0.26 | 0.0 | C | MUN | |
| 30895.20377 | 1905-10-16 | 1941-07-25 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | |
| 34419.33784 | 1942-07-01 | 1959-07-21 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 755 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
86CW0153, CA8303, CA5812, CA1895.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
86CW0153 | 2 | 1986-12-31 | S |
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 1 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA1895 | 1 | 1910-07-02 | O |
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 163 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 85 AF — 52% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 372 | 14th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | — | 161 | 97.0 |
| 2008 | 163 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 150 | 1.1 |
| 2009 | 67 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | — | 173 | 0.6 |
| 2012 | 120 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 97 | 180 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 186 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 126 | 178 | 2.2 |
| 2014 | 36 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 0 | 89 | 0.5 |
| 2015 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 0 | 117 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 224 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 187 | 171 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | — | 57 | 0.2 |
| 2018 | 235 | 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 123 | 181 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 166 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 131 | 153 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 340 | 13th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 255 | 177 | 1.9 |
| 2021 | 641 | 15th lowest of 15 · 393% of median | 583 | 131 | 9.3 |
| 2023 | 138 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 71 | 88 | 1.1 |
| 2025 | 85 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | — | 158 | 0.5 |
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 | 4449 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% 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.