Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LARIMER WELD RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0303805 · 3 · CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:52 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 1890-06-30 — 209th 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: LONGS PEAK SPG WELL 8 (1889-12-31). Immediately behind: BRACKENBURY RANCH WELL 2 (1890-12-31).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14791.0 | 1890-06-30 | 1904-12-09 | 5165.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 16527.0 | 1895-04-01 | 1904-12-09 | 2296.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 20333.0 | 1905-09-02 | 1922-04-22 | 2296.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 35050.31888 | 1937-04-22 | 1953-09-10 | 633.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA11217, CA2031, CA1591.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA11217 | 1 | 1953-09-10 | S |
CA2031 | 1 | 1922-04-22 | S |
CA1591 | 2 | 1904-12-09 | 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 10,961 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,622 AF — 15% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 13,544 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 14,105 | 278 | 132.0 |
| 2011 | 15,667 | 13th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 14,794 | 327 | 135.1 |
| 2012 | 11,318 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 14,056 | 299 | 76.1 |
| 2013 | 6,714 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 14,070 | 124 | 225.0 |
| 2014 | 4,536 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 8,373 | 296 | 29.8 |
| 2015 | 2,970 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 12,211 | 138 | 47.8 |
| 2016 | 7,900 | 5th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 15,018 | 277 | 50.7 |
| 2017 | 10,961 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 15,368 | 251 | 75.0 |
| 2018 | 9,881 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 7,183 | 281 | 80.4 |
| 2019 | 9,973 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 8,039 | 310 | 72.9 |
| 2020 | 12,820 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 7,731 | 303 | 88.8 |
| 2021 | 16,588 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 18,226 | 357 | 165.7 |
| 2022 | 17,501 | 15th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 19,164 | 365 | 104.8 |
| 2023 | 13,892 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 10,489 | 290 | 134.6 |
| 2024 | 1,622 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 10,703 | 41 | 30.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5653 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 51% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2024 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.