Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ADAMS TUNNEL
Structure dossier · WDID 0404634 · 0 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1965-06-24 — 1279th 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: SWARTZ PIT M-1977-079 (1981-01-01). Immediately behind: MILLIEKN FBC PARK WELL (2016-07-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60630.42178 | 1965-06-24 | 2016-12-31 | 28.0 | 0.0 | C | PWR | |
| 60630.5979 | 2013-09-12 | 2016-12-31 | 88.63 | 0.0 | C | PWR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
16CW3193.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
16CW3193 | 2 | 2016-12-31 | 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 218,147 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 200,277 AF — 92% of that, and 5th 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 | 27,172 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 203,912 | 45 | 560.0 |
| 2011 | 266,047 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 266,047 | 334 | 574.0 |
| 2012 | 308,399 | 15th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 308,399 | 341 | 842.3 |
| 2013 | 193,420 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 193,420 | 292 | 565.0 |
| 2014 | 211,194 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 211,194 | 334 | 558.0 |
| 2015 | 132,239 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 132,239 | 320 | 550.0 |
| 2016 | 245,555 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 245,555 | 337 | 557.0 |
| 2017 | 218,147 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218,147 | 343 | 559.3 |
| 2018 | 268,513 | 13th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 268,513 | 338 | 558.0 |
| 2019 | 277,339 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 277,339 | 336 | 552.0 |
| 2020 | 212,337 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 212,337 | 337 | 557.0 |
| 2021 | 250,322 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 250,322 | 360 | 562.0 |
| 2022 | 176,832 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 176,832 | 281 | 562.5 |
| 2023 | 240,476 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 240,476 | 354 | 552.0 |
| 2024 | 200,277 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 200,277 | 293 | 555.4 |
Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 5.6% of a median season / 0.0% dry-year.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4645 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1989-2024 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.