Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MILLER D-ALAMOSA
Structure dossier · WDID 2100561 · 1 · ALAMOSA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:11 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 1873-04-13 — 25th 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: JOSE E ATENCIO D (1873-04-11). Immediately behind: ROMERO D (1873-04-13).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8504.0 | 1873-04-13 | 1888-07-11 | 6.224 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 8541.0 | 1873-05-20 | 1888-07-11 | 2.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 24 |
| 13006.0 | 1885-08-10 | 1888-07-11 | 34.86 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 70 |
| 13464.0 | 1886-11-11 | 1888-07-11 | 31.54 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 75 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3837, 07/11/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3837 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
07/11/1888 | 2 | 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 1,319 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,184 AF — 90% of that, and 7th 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 | 1,323 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 42.5 |
| 2012 | 823 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 71 | 11.8 |
| 2013 | 529 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 41 | 10.9 |
| 2014 | 1,618 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 92 | 58.6 |
| 2015 | 2,246 | 11th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 76 | 74.9 |
| 2016 | 3,263 | 13th lowest of 15 · 247% of median | 79 | 73.7 |
| 2017 | 3,342 | 14th lowest of 15 · 253% of median | 112 | 66.3 |
| 2018 | 895 | 4th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 65 | 10.4 |
| 2019 | 4,310 | 15th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | 114 | 69.1 |
| 2020 | 711 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 45 | 12.4 |
| 2021 | 1,319 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 43.3 |
| 2022 | 925 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 79 | 43.3 |
| 2023 | 2,383 | 12th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 95 | 40.0 |
| 2024 | 1,160 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 80 | 9.0 |
| 2025 | 1,184 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 85 | 8.5 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4414 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1952-2025 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.