Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ALAMOSA CR CNL
Structure dossier · WDID 2100503 · 1 · ALAMOSA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:57 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 1867-08-01 — 2nd most senior of the 1041 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: W2256 WELL NO 01 (1860-12-31). Immediately behind: EL VIEGO D (1867-08-01).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6422.0 | 1867-08-01 | 1888-07-11 | 4.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 7061.0 | 1869-05-01 | 1888-07-11 | 2.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 8464.0 | 1873-03-04 | 1888-07-11 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 9618.0 | 1876-05-01 | 1888-07-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
| 13062.0 | 1885-10-05 | 1888-07-11 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 71 |
| 13585.0 | 1887-03-12 | 1888-07-11 | 30.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 13752.0 | 1887-08-26 | 1888-07-11 | 26.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 85 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA2667, CA0971, CA0489, 94CW0004, 07/11/1888, 01CW0037.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2667 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
CA0971 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | O |
CA0489 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
94CW0004 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | O |
07/11/1888 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | O |
01CW0037 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | 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 5,330 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,230 AF — 98% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4,827 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 210 | 31.0 |
| 2012 | 4,689 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 214 | 27.2 |
| 2013 | 3,970 | 1st lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 211 | 17.6 |
| 2014 | 5,747 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 212 | 79.0 |
| 2015 | 4,987 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 214 | 29.0 |
| 2016 | 6,701 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 213 | 58.8 |
| 2017 | 7,967 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 270 | 53.9 |
| 2018 | 5,439 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 306 | 31.7 |
| 2019 | 9,047 | 14th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 275 | 56.5 |
| 2020 | 5,312 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 306 | 31.5 |
| 2021 | 4,979 | 4th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 266 | 26.9 |
| 2022 | 5,402 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 365 | 27.8 |
| 2023 | 9,867 | 15th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 306 | 57.5 |
| 2024 | 5,330 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 213 | 28.2 |
| 2025 | 5,230 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 214 | 23.8 |
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 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13924 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 86% 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.