Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WESTSIDE D
Structure dossier · WDID 2000903 · 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 1878-12-31 — 162nd 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: PFEIFFER D (1878-12-01). Immediately behind: INDEPENDENT D (1879-03-24).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10592.0 | 1878-12-31 | 1896-05-01 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 165 |
| 11869.0 | 1882-06-30 | 1896-05-01 | 8.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 234 |
| 12510.0 | 1884-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 12.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 259 |
| 12875.0 | 1885-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 274 |
| 13240.0 | 1886-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 280 |
| 13605.0 | 1887-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 304 |
| 13971.0 | 1888-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 322 |
| 14336.0 | 1889-04-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 346 |
| 14761.0 | 1890-05-31 | 1896-05-01 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 363 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1031, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1031 | 7 | 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 4,004 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,948 AF — 99% of that, and 7th 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 | 4,150 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 125 | 39.9 |
| 2012 | 3,740 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 127 | 35.8 |
| 2013 | 3,416 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 180 | 35.8 |
| 2014 | 4,004 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 35.8 |
| 2015 | 5,386 | 13th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 161 | 47.2 |
| 2016 | 6,016 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 274 | 47.1 |
| 2017 | 4,770 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 365 | 39.8 |
| 2018 | 3,916 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 47.6 |
| 2019 | 6,693 | 15th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 364 | 44.2 |
| 2020 | 3,756 | 4th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 365 | 35.8 |
| 2021 | 3,188 | 1st lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 365 | 35.8 |
| 2022 | 3,883 | 5th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 365 | 43.9 |
| 2023 | 4,851 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 304 | 41.5 |
| 2024 | 4,421 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 275 | 35.8 |
| 2025 | 3,948 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 303 | 35.8 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10159 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 63% 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.