Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARIANO RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0404134 · 3 · BIG THOMPSON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:20 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 1888-08-01 — 45th 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: KUNCE WELL 1-60341 (1886-02-02). Immediately behind: MARY E HALLOWELL DITCH (1863-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14093.0 | 1888-08-01 | 1890-03-22 | 5570.7 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNAUGOTH | |
| 29675.20986 | 1907-06-17 | 1939-11-14 | 5570.7 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNAUGOTH |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
20CW3011, 90CW0202, CA10077, 98CW0410, 06CW0224, 03/22/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3011 | 10 | 2020-12-31 | O, S |
90CW0202 | 4 | 1980-03-22 | O, S |
CA10077 | 1 | 1939-11-14 | S |
98CW0410 | 4 | 1939-11-14 | O, S |
06CW0224 | 4 | 1939-11-14 | O, S |
03/22/1890 | 1 | 1890-03-22 | 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 4,692 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,852 AF — 40% of that, and 3rd 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 | 4,692 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 6,738 | 59 | 105.9 |
| 2011 | 5,169 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 5,738 | 81 | 80.0 |
| 2012 | 5,520 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 5,078 | 108 | 89.6 |
| 2013 | 4,424 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 4,491 | 44 | 100.0 |
| 2014 | 1,849 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 2,244 | 30 | 63.9 |
| 2015 | 1,015 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 7,304 | 9 | 79.3 |
| 2016 | 4,185 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 8,324 | 97 | 58.1 |
| 2017 | 8,631 | 15th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 4,868 | 144 | 76.9 |
| 2018 | 1,856 | 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 7,417 | 41 | 75.9 |
| 2019 | 3,965 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 5,476 | 105 | 38.5 |
| 2020 | 6,285 | 14th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 6,571 | 144 | 66.0 |
| 2021 | 6,067 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 8,027 | 149 | 89.0 |
| 2022 | 5,963 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 4,687 | 182 | 48.9 |
| 2023 | 4,874 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 4,688 | 231 | 56.5 |
| 2024 | 1,852 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 5,968 | 77 | 67.9 |
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 (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 | 1605 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1982-2024 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.