Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KEYAH GRANDE P #2
Structure dossier · WDID 7803785 · 3 · DEVIL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:51 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 1986-07-01 — 283rd most senior of the 366 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: HILDBRANDT IRRIG SYSTEM (1987-04-05). Immediately behind: ROSE POND AND PUMPSITE (1986-12-31).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50403.49855 | 1986-07-01 | 1988-12-31 | 14.0 | 0.0 | A | RECFIS |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
02CW0046, 88CW0063, 88CW0064.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0046 | 1 | 2002-12-31 | S |
88CW0063 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
88CW0064 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 62 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 12 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 12 | 4th lowest of 12 · 19% of median | — | 61 | 0.1 |
| 1999 | 737 | 12th lowest of 12 · 1189% of median | — | 237 | 3.0 |
| 2000 | 60 | 6th lowest of 12 · 97% of median | — | 61 | 0.5 |
| 2001 | 359 | 11th lowest of 12 · 579% of median | 130 | 365 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 67 | 8th lowest of 12 · 108% of median | 0 | 180 | 0.3 |
| 2003 | 179 | 10th lowest of 12 · 289% of median | 0 | 180 | 1.8 |
| 2004 | 9 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 14% of median | 167 | 120 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 71 | 9th lowest of 12 · 114% of median | 41 | 65 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 64 | 7th lowest of 12 · 103% of median | 153 | 120 | 1.2 |
| 2007 | 26 | 5th lowest of 12 · 42% of median | 2 | 36 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 3 | 0.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1429 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1998-2010 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.