Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RES 3 ST BD AGRICULTURE
Structure dossier · WDID 0303667 · 3 · SOLDIER CANYON · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 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 1862-03-01 — 56th 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: ROCKWELL RES (1862-03-01). Immediately behind: LONG DRAW RESERVOIR (1862-03-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4443.0 | 1862-03-01 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 5372.0 | 1864-09-15 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 6649.0 | 1868-03-15 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 8480.0 | 1873-03-20 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 10318.0 | 1878-04-01 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 11438.0 | 1881-04-25 | 1882-04-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL | |
| 19113.0 | 1902-05-01 | 1909-10-28 | 711.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 23646.0 | 1914-09-28 | 1945-12-18 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOALL |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
98CW0435, 13CW3037, 03CW0421, CA1591.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0435 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
13CW3037 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
03CW0421 | 7 | 1945-12-18 | O |
CA1591 | 1 | 1909-10-28 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 888 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 804 AF — 90% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 17 | 1st lowest of 13 · 2% of median | — | 61 | 0.2 |
| 1999 | 746 | 5th lowest of 13 · 84% of median | — | 287 | 6.7 |
| 2000 | 1,639 | 13th lowest of 13 · 185% of median | 105 | 276 | 6.0 |
| 2001 | 993 | 10th lowest of 13 · 112% of median | 1,130 | 291 | 7.4 |
| 2002 | 982 | 9th lowest of 13 · 111% of median | 1,160 | 335 | 4.4 |
| 2003 | 970 | 8th lowest of 13 · 109% of median | 840 | 334 | 3.8 |
| 2004 | 739 | 4th lowest of 13 · 83% of median | 540 | 366 | 2.5 |
| 2005 | 888 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 917 | 365 | 4.6 |
| 2006 | 1,133 | 12th lowest of 13 · 128% of median | 1,083 | 337 | 3.3 |
| 2007 | 1,071 | 11th lowest of 13 · 121% of median | 1,050 | 337 | 4.6 |
| 2008 | 675 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 76% of median | 831 | 366 | 3.7 |
| 2009 | 692 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 78% of median | 550 | 365 | 4.1 |
| 2010 | 804 | 6th lowest of 13 · 90% of median | 1,000 | 304 | 3.4 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4024 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.