Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RIO GRANDE SAN LUIS D
Structure dossier · WDID 2000817 · 1 · RIO GRANDE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:06 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 1878-06-01 — 156th 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: DAVIES BROS D (1878-06-01). Immediately behind: FIELD D (1878-06-30).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 156 |
| 11415.0 | 1881-04-02 | 1896-05-01 | 14.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 204 |
| 11609.0 | 1881-10-13 | 1896-05-01 | 0.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 217 |
| 11807.0 | 1882-04-29 | 1896-05-01 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 220 |
| 13594.0 | 1887-03-21 | 1896-05-01 | 9.52 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 298 |
| 16923.14791 | 1890-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 19.06 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-22D |
| 16923.15522 | 1892-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 0.54 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-30E |
| 16923.15887 | 1893-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 2.48 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-34B |
| 18443.0 | 1900-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 0.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-57E |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0735, CA0389, CA0156, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0735 | 5 | 1903-04-09 | O, S |
CA0389 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | O |
CA0156 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | O |
05/01/1896 | 2 | 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 6,612 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,973 AF — 90% of that, and 5th 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 | 6,941 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 218 | 52.2 |
| 2012 | 4,724 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 214 | 31.1 |
| 2013 | 6,465 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 206 | 42.2 |
| 2014 | 7,389 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 208 | 45.6 |
| 2015 | 7,512 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 214 | 53.2 |
| 2016 | 8,922 | 14th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 225 | 49.5 |
| 2017 | 9,113 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 217 | 52.6 |
| 2018 | 2,832 | 1st lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 140 | 29.6 |
| 2019 | 7,738 | 13th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 213 | 53.2 |
| 2020 | 4,840 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 208 | 38.1 |
| 2021 | 5,478 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 190 | 48.6 |
| 2022 | 6,371 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 180 | 50.1 |
| 2023 | 6,612 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 214 | 53.1 |
| 2024 | 6,700 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 192 | 50.1 |
| 2025 | 5,973 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 210 | 49.0 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15179 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% 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.