Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MALLETT D
Structure dossier · WDID 2000729 · 1 · PINOS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:52 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 1873-12-31 — 40th most senior of the 8016 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: LOMA D (1873-12-31). Immediately behind: PINOS CR D 1 (1873-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8766.0 | 1873-12-31 | 1896-05-01 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 9831.0 | 1876-11-30 | 1896-05-01 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 133 |
| 10378.0 | 1878-05-31 | 1896-05-01 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 154 |
| 19456.15766 | 1893-03-01 | 1916-09-13 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1916-33D |
| 19456.16071 | 1893-12-31 | 1916-09-13 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1916-36A |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W3420, 09/13/1916, CA0948, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3420 | 2 | 1916-09-13 | O, S |
09/13/1916 | 1 | 1916-09-13 | S |
CA0948 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | O |
05/01/1896 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | 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 342 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 474 AF — 139% of that, and 11th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| 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 | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 180 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 95 | 3.7 |
| 2012 | 124 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 79 | 3.7 |
| 2013 | 63 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 63 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 318 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 79 | 7.7 |
| 2015 | 284 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 75 | 7.6 |
| 2016 | 588 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 205 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 522 | 12th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 214 | 3.7 |
| 2018 | 242 | 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 90 | 3.7 |
| 2019 | 557 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 158 | 7.0 |
| 2020 | 135 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 100 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 342 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 133 | 3.7 |
| 2022 | 446 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 199 | 3.7 |
| 2023 | 583 | 14th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 138 | 3.7 |
| 2024 | 415 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 158 | 3.7 |
| 2025 | 474 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 132 | 3.7 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8052 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 50% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.