Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOWLAND D
Structure dossier · WDID 2100558 · 1 · ALAMOSA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1881-04-01 — 60th 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: HARDTACK D S BR (1881-03-10). Immediately behind: ALAMOS D (1881-04-10).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1888-07-11 | 14.94 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 57 |
| 13062.0 | 1885-10-05 | 1888-07-11 | 55.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 71 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0971, 07/11/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0971 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
07/11/1888 | 4 | 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 3,686 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 390 AF — 11% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 7,957 | 13th lowest of 15 · 216% of median | 97 | 92.7 |
| 2008 | 11,251 | 15th lowest of 15 · 305% of median | 126 | 130.9 |
| 2009 | 8,040 | 14th lowest of 15 · 218% of median | 94 | 114.0 |
| 2010 | 5,796 | 10th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 214 | 126.0 |
| 2015 | 1,187 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 26 | 43.0 |
| 2016 | 3,686 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 41 | 120.6 |
| 2017 | 4,618 | 9th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 88 | 73.2 |
| 2018 | 682 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 16 | 44.2 |
| 2019 | 6,360 | 11th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 70 | 111.0 |
| 2020 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 2 | 14.9 |
| 2021 | 1,981 | 7th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 39 | 62.1 |
| 2022 | 1,708 | 6th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 32 | 60.6 |
| 2023 | 7,196 | 12th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 65 | 90.4 |
| 2024 | 952 | 4th lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 28 | 57.2 |
| 2025 | 390 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 21 | 20.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-378 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3607 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% 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.