Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LA VETA PIPELINE
Structure dossier · WDID 1600585 · 7 · CUCHARAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:17 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 1863-05-30 — 1st most senior of the 1044 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 behind: SPANISH PEAKS DITCH (1863-05-30).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4898.0 | 1863-05-30 | 1889-06-12 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 1 |
| 5295.0 | 1864-06-30 | 1889-06-12 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 3 |
| 8553.0 | 1873-06-01 | 1889-06-12 | 1.48 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 35 |
| 55126.0 | 2000-12-05 | 2000-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOMUN | |
| 61713.0 | 2018-12-18 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
17CW3075, 17CW3063, 00CW0149, 00CW0130, CA1414, CA3276.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3075 | 11 | 2017-12-31 | S |
17CW3063 | 7 | 2017-12-31 | S |
00CW0149 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
00CW0130 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
CA1414 | 1 | 1921-10-03 | S |
CA3276 | 3 | 1889-06-12 | 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 284 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 126 AF — 44% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 362 | 15th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 365 | 0.9 |
| 2012 | 277 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 366 | 2.2 |
| 2013 | 298 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | — | 365 | 4.3 |
| 2014 | 284 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 365 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 234 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 334 | 5.2 |
| 2016 | 319 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 366 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 257 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 365 | 2.1 |
| 2018 | 350 | 14th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | — | 365 | 1.7 |
| 2019 | 322 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | — | 365 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 308 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 366 | 1.2 |
| 2021 | 322 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | — | 365 | 1.9 |
| 2022 | 264 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 365 | 1.1 |
| 2023 | 151 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | — | 213 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 269 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 366 | 1.2 |
| 2025 | 126 | 1st lowest of 15 · 44% of median | — | 304 | 2.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 20552 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1961-2025 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.