Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MONTOYA-MEXICAN D
Structure dossier · WDID 2001603 · 1 · PINOS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:39 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 1867-03-10 — 8th 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: ROBRAN D (1867-03-10). Immediately behind: W2625 WELL NO 01 (1870-01-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6278.0 | 1867-03-10 | 1896-05-01 | 2.53 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4 |
| 7822.0 | 1871-06-01 | 1896-05-01 | 1.02 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 10743.0 | 1879-05-31 | 1896-05-01 | 2.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 168 |
| 13269.0 | 1886-04-30 | 1896-05-01 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 281 |
| 19456.13971 | 1888-04-01 | 1916-09-13 | 2.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1916-20 |
| 19456.13971 | 1888-04-01 | 1916-09-13 | 5.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1916-20A |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
W3909.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3909 | 6 | 1916-09-13 | O, 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 1,562 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,618 AF — 104% of that, and 10th 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 | 1,442 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 209 | 7.0 |
| 2012 | 1,332 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 217 | 6.8 |
| 2013 | 1,231 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 188 | 6.7 |
| 2014 | 1,664 | 13th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 216 | 15.0 |
| 2015 | 1,522 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 216 | 7.1 |
| 2016 | 1,534 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 213 | 6.9 |
| 2017 | 1,652 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 204 | 5.7 |
| 2018 | 1,406 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 221 | 7.0 |
| 2019 | 1,562 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 209 | 13.0 |
| 2020 | 1,134 | 1st lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 213 | 3.7 |
| 2021 | 1,616 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 217 | 7.1 |
| 2022 | 1,911 | 15th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 217 | 7.1 |
| 2023 | 1,818 | 14th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 213 | 7.1 |
| 2024 | 1,630 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 209 | 9.1 |
| 2025 | 1,618 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 212 | 7.1 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6802 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 95% of the irrigation seasons in 1992-2025 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.