Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LA VETA TOWN RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 1603717 · 3 · CUCHARAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:41 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 1901-04-10 — 190th 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 ahead: WAHATOYA RESERVOIR (1901-03-21). Immediately behind: FIELDEN DITCH (1901-05-31).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18915.18727 | 1901-04-10 | 1921-10-03 | 256.0 | 0.0 | A | MUNFIRDOM | 228 |
| 55140.0 | 2000-12-19 | 2000-12-31 | 0.0 | 150.0 | A | MUNAUG | |
| 61195.0 | 2017-07-18 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 8.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMINDFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | |
| 61195.0 | 2017-07-18 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 150.0 | A | STOIRRMUNCOMINDFISFIRDOMSTKAUG |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
17CW3075, 00CW0149, CA1414.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3075 | 1 | 2017-12-31 | S |
00CW0149 | 3 | 2000-12-31 | S |
CA1414 | 1 | 1921-10-03 | 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 8 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 248 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 240 AF — 97% of that, and 4th lowest of the 8 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 43 | 2nd lowest of 8 · 17% of median | — | 61 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 319 | 8th lowest of 8 · 128% of median | — | 366 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 257 | 5th lowest of 8 · 103% of median | — | 365 | 2.1 |
| 2018 | 265 | 7th lowest of 8 · 107% of median | — | 304 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 35 | 1st lowest of 8 · 14% of median | 1 | 61 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 264 | 6th lowest of 8 · 106% of median | 0 | 365 | 1.1 |
| 2023 | 151 | 3rd lowest of 8 · 61% of median | 0 | 365 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 240 | 4th lowest of 8 · 97% of median | — | 305 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 8 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2192 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2015-2024 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.