Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH FORK HIGHLINE D
Structure dossier · WDID 2000854 · 1 · SOUTH FORK RIO GRANDE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:05 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 1876-04-01 — 121st 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: W2773 WELL NO 03 (1876-03-31). Immediately behind: BEVAN D 5 (1876-05-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9588.0 | 1876-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 106 |
| 11079.0 | 1880-05-01 | 1896-05-01 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 184 |
| 13330.0 | 1886-06-30 | 1896-05-01 | 3.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 292 |
| 13605.0 | 1887-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 307 |
| 14336.0 | 1889-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 3.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 352 |
| 19456.19083 | 1902-04-01 | 1916-09-13 | 5.397 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1916-58 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
86CW0030, 09/13/1916, CA2360, CA0827, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
86CW0030 | 5 | 1916-09-13 | O, S |
09/13/1916 | 1 | 1916-09-13 | S |
CA2360 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | O |
CA0827 | 1 | 1896-05-01 | O |
05/01/1896 | 3 | 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 944 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 456 AF — 48% of that, and 2nd 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 | 1,230 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 218 | 11.6 |
| 2012 | 1,362 | 15th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 217 | 11.6 |
| 2013 | 1,084 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 207 | 11.6 |
| 2014 | 944 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 202 | 5.4 |
| 2015 | 1,034 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 216 | 6.3 |
| 2016 | 1,231 | 14th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 223 | 5.4 |
| 2017 | 925 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 196 | 5.3 |
| 2018 | 664 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 167 | 6.3 |
| 2019 | 1,090 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 194 | 6.7 |
| 2020 | 1,220 | 12th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 216 | 10.0 |
| 2021 | 791 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 164 | 6.9 |
| 2022 | 823 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 203 | 4.5 |
| 2023 | 807 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 191 | 5.8 |
| 2024 | 417 | 1st lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 142 | 6.2 |
| 2025 | 456 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 99 | 6.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-49 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.004).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13428 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 83% 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.