Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTHEY D 2
Structure dossier · WDID 2000856 · 1 · ALDRICH SLOUGH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:51 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 1889-06-30 — 436th 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: SOUTHEY D 1 (1889-06-30). Immediately behind: NEW DITCH (1890-06-30).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16923.14426 | 1889-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-17E |
| 16923.16617 | 1895-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-41H |
| 18808.0 | 1901-06-30 | 1903-04-09 | 0.64 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1903-61D |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
04/09/1903.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04/09/1903 | 3 | 1903-04-09 | 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 651 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 560 AF — 86% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 596 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 147 | 2.6 |
| 2004 | 552 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 122 | 2.3 |
| 2005 | 252 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 90 | 2.3 |
| 2007 | 3,011 | 15th lowest of 15 · 462% of median | 196 | 9.0 |
| 2009 | 821 | 9th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 182 | 2.3 |
| 2010 | 2,971 | 14th lowest of 15 · 456% of median | 174 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 1,161 | 12th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 187 | 6.4 |
| 2012 | 1,190 | 13th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 202 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 931 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 205 | 2.3 |
| 2015 | 944 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 214 | 2.3 |
| 2019 | 518 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 183 | 2.3 |
| 2021 | 651 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 183 | 2.3 |
| 2022 | 380 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 210 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 507 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 215 | 2.1 |
| 2025 | 560 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 193 | 2.0 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4053 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2025 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.