Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ALAMOSA SPRG CR D
Structure dossier · WDID 2100505 · 1 · ALAMOSA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:35 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 1874-11-30 — 39th 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: LE MITA D 3 (1874-06-15). Immediately behind: AGUA CALIENTE D (1875-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9100.0 | 1874-11-30 | 1888-07-11 | 5.76 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 10044.0 | 1877-07-01 | 1888-07-11 | 18.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 41 |
| 11140.0 | 1880-07-01 | 1888-07-11 | 6.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 54 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
11CW0021, 07/11/1888, 02CW0015.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0021 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | O |
07/11/1888 | 4 | 1888-07-11 | O |
02CW0015 | 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 1,633 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,633 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 1,152 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 80 | 28.5 |
| 2012 | 425 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 43 | 27.2 |
| 2013 | 185 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 17 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 1,025 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 46 | 23.3 |
| 2015 | 1,240 | 7th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 40 | 36.5 |
| 2016 | 2,141 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 63 | 36.5 |
| 2017 | 2,828 | 14th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 97 | 37.0 |
| 2018 | 1,046 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 41 | 36.5 |
| 2019 | 2,031 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 105 | 28.0 |
| 2020 | 1,006 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 39 | 36.5 |
| 2021 | 1,915 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 50 | 36.5 |
| 2022 | 1,747 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 55 | 36.5 |
| 2023 | 3,399 | 15th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 84 | 36.6 |
| 2024 | 1,961 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 59 | 36.5 |
| 2025 | 1,633 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 61 | 36.5 |
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 | 4592 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% 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.