LA HOYA D ☆ My Water

In short

LA HOYA D holds 1 decreed right on ALAMOSA RIVER. As of 2026-10-18, 1 of them are out of priority under a call at admin 8889.00000 placed by HEAD OVFL D 5. 8 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 95 acre-feet. That use is falling by about 2.5 acre-feet a year over 15 years (p=0.0026887302898286336). It was a party to 1 court cases that also touched 7 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (13 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Current administration

● Fully called out — call at HEAD OVFL D 5 (ALAMOSA RIVER, priority 1874-05-02).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

Under today's controlling call (HEAD OVFL D 5, priority 1874-05-02): 1 of this structure's 1 rights are out of priority now. (8 call(s) state no district and sit outside this one — not judged, not assumed.) In the 5 past years most like this one (2022, 2019, 2016, 2025, 2017), 1 of the rights shown below were out at least one week in at least one analog year.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1888-07-12 — 76th 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: W1228 WELL NO 01 (1887-12-31)☆. Immediately behind: SPRING OVFL D (1889-05-24)☆.

On ALAMOSA RIVER at river mile 36.5, it is 52nd of 118 down the reach. Immediately upstream: HILARIO D☆. Immediately downstream: JOSE M VALDEZ D☆.

Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.

Decreed rights (1)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 3.0 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 5 year(s) had 1.0 cfs in priority (33% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 0.2% of days.

On 23 days some rights were in priority and others were not — seniority splits a decree rather than switching it off. Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it. A call began or ended mid-day on 3 of these days.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

4 decreed actions on record across 3 court cases: CA0304, 91CW0032, 14CW0006.

17 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 15 water-court documents across 3 cases, including 3 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-10-21.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 2100550 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 1 court case that also touched 7 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

Also a party to 1 omnibus adjudication (CA0304, 13 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 95 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-2 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).

Its reference gage, Terrace Main Cnl: no clear flow trend.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (8/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.