Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
A G PEARSON PL
Structure dossier · WDID 0400551 · 7 · WIND RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:12 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 1909-08-16 — 232nd most senior of the 1296 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: SPRAGUE PIPELINE (1909-06-01). Immediately behind: GRIFFITH WELL 1 (1909-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29675.21777 | 1909-08-16 | 1939-11-14 | 0.12 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECDOM | |
| 32718.0 | 1939-07-31 | 1939-11-14 | 2.28 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECDOM | |
| 52945.0 | 1994-12-16 | 1994-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDRECFISFIRDOMSTKOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
94CW0245, W0397, CA10077, 88CW0030.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0245 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | O |
W0397 | 1 | 1939-11-14 | S |
CA10077 | 3 | 1939-11-14 | S |
88CW0030 | 1 | 1939-11-14 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 171 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 23 AF — 14% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | — | no recorded volume | 140 | 0 | — |
| 2004 | — | no recorded volume | 147 | 0 | — |
| 2005 | — | no recorded volume | 69 | 0 | — |
| 2011 | 12 | 1st lowest of 12 · 7% of median | — | 31 | 0.3 |
| 2012 | 166 | 6th lowest of 12 · 97% of median | — | 346 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 184 | 9th lowest of 12 · 108% of median | — | 354 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 213 | 11th lowest of 12 · 125% of median | — | 365 | 0.5 |
| 2015 | 178 | 8th lowest of 12 · 104% of median | — | 315 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 258 | 12th lowest of 12 · 151% of median | — | 208 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 193 | 10th lowest of 12 · 113% of median | — | 163 | 1.4 |
| 2018 | 176 | 7th lowest of 12 · 103% of median | — | 254 | 0.7 |
| 2019 | 142 | 4th lowest of 12 · 83% of median | — | 166 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 105 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 61% of median | — | 125 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 156 | 5th lowest of 12 · 91% of median | — | 151 | 1.0 |
| 2022 | 23 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 14% of median | — | 27 | 0.5 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3235 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 59% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2022 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.