Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HORSESHOE NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 0404123 · 3 · BIG THOMPSON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1902-04-28 — 81st 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: BOYD LAKE RES (1902-04-28). Immediately behind: LAWN RES (1902-06-10).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19110.0 | 1902-04-28 | 1916-06-29 | 8432.05 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUG | |
| 46386.1911 | 1902-04-28 | 1977-12-31 | 8432.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUG |
Legal record & documents
35 decreed actions on record across
10 court cases:
W8664, 99CW0235, 97CW0077, 96CW0958, 95CW0042, 87CW0329, 18CW3042, 08CW0175B, 03CW0314, CA4862.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W8664 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
99CW0235 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
97CW0077 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
96CW0958 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
95CW0042 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
87CW0329 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
18CW3042 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
08CW0175B | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
03CW0314 | 4 | 1977-12-31 | S |
CA4862 | 2 | 1916-06-29 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 4,912 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,135 AF — 23% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 14 years with a recorded volume.
| 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 | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 4,959 | 8th lowest of 14 · 101% of median | 23 | 200.0 |
| 2005 | 133 | 1st lowest of 14 · 3% of median | 3 | 50.0 |
| 2010 | 1,273 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 26% of median | 3 | 345.0 |
| 2011 | 4,963 | 9th lowest of 14 · 101% of median | 7 | 524.5 |
| 2015 | 5,456 | 10th lowest of 14 · 111% of median | 18 | 327.0 |
| 2016 | 5,777 | 11th lowest of 14 · 118% of median | 41 | 528.0 |
| 2017 | 12,137 | 14th lowest of 14 · 247% of median | 83 | 488.3 |
| 2018 | 6,270 | 12th lowest of 14 · 128% of median | 34 | 514.7 |
| 2019 | 4,280 | 6th lowest of 14 · 87% of median | 31 | 424.5 |
| 2020 | 2,897 | 4th lowest of 14 · 59% of median | 53 | 443.5 |
| 2021 | 8,950 | 13th lowest of 14 · 182% of median | 45 | 542.0 |
| 2022 | 4,045 | 5th lowest of 14 · 82% of median | 68 | 426.1 |
| 2023 | 4,865 | 7th lowest of 14 · 99% of median | 65 | 567.6 |
| 2024 | 1,135 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 23% of median | 29 | 45.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 503 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 8% of the irrigation seasons in 1994-2024 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.