Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARMONY 25 RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 0303310 · 3 · CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 2005-09-01 — 2895th most senior of the 2961 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: STOVALL WELL 265464 (2005-07-25). Immediately behind: TOVASS SPRING (2008-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58074.56857 | 2005-09-01 | 2009-12-31 | 682.75 | 0.0 | A | AUGCURRCH |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
17CW3113, 09CW0030.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3113 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
09CW0030 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 322 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 322 AF — 100% of that, and 7th lowest of the 13 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 | 699 | 12th lowest of 13 · 217% of median | — | 33 | 21.7 |
| 2012 | 526 | 11th lowest of 13 · 163% of median | — | 56 | 15.0 |
| 2013 | 295 | 5th lowest of 13 · 92% of median | — | 45 | 80.0 |
| 2014 | 223 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 69% of median | — | 127 | 12.9 |
| 2015 | 385 | 9th lowest of 13 · 120% of median | — | 30 | 15.1 |
| 2017 | 310 | 6th lowest of 13 · 96% of median | — | 44 | 15.3 |
| 2018 | 203 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 63% of median | — | 17 | 9.6 |
| 2019 | 732 | 13th lowest of 13 · 227% of median | — | 46 | 16.4 |
| 2020 | 91 | 1st lowest of 13 · 28% of median | 117 | 6 | 10.6 |
| 2021 | 335 | 8th lowest of 13 · 104% of median | — | 14 | 15.2 |
| 2022 | 258 | 4th lowest of 13 · 80% of median | 69 | 82 | 8.4 |
| 2023 | 427 | 10th lowest of 13 · 133% of median | — | 97 | 11.7 |
| 2024 | 322 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | — | 56 | 15.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 653 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 2011-2024 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.