Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HERMOSA VALLEY RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 1903789 · 3 · RITO SECO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:50 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 1922-02-01 — 191st most senior of the 735 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: LANFORD WELL NO 2 (1921-12-31). Immediately behind: ELSTON-HERRERA DITCH (1922-02-03).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26329.0 | 1922-02-01 | 1925-01-12 | 0.0 | 1531.5197 | A | IRR | R23C |
| 29084.0 | 1929-08-18 | 1925-01-12 | 1531.5197 | 0.0 | A | IRR | R23 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA6118-29, CA6118.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6118-29 | 1 | 1925-01-12 | S |
CA6118 | 1 | 1925-01-12 | 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 68 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 155 AF — 228% of that, and 12th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 36 | 6th lowest of 14 · 53% of median | — | 4 | 6.0 |
| 1996 | 6 | 5th lowest of 14 · 9% of median | — | 4 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 113 | 11th lowest of 14 · 166% of median | — | 14 | 6.0 |
| 2005 | — | no recorded volume | 240 | 0 | — |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 9 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 65 | 7th lowest of 14 · 96% of median | — | 10 | 3.6 |
| 2010 | 71 | 8th lowest of 14 · 104% of median | — | 14 | 4.1 |
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 94 | 10th lowest of 14 · 138% of median | — | 36 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 85 | 9th lowest of 14 · 125% of median | — | 49 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 198 | 13th lowest of 14 · 291% of median | — | 79 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 229 | 14th lowest of 14 · 337% of median | — | 71 | 2.1 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 155 | 12th lowest of 14 · 228% of median | — | 48 | 2.3 |
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 | 522 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 4% of the irrigation seasons in 1961-2023 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.