Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH SIDE ARROYA D
Structure dossier · WDID 2100596 · 1 · LA JARA ARROYO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:03 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 1889-05-25 — 79th 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: L D ESKRIDGE IRR D (1889-05-25). Immediately behind: KEYSTONE D (1890-02-25).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14390.0 | 1889-05-25 | 1903-05-08 | 7.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 98 |
| 19485.19035 | 1902-02-12 | 1918-02-07 | 36.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 109 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
02/07/1918, CA0304.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02/07/1918 | 1 | 1918-02-07 | S |
CA0304 | 1 | 1903-05-08 | S |
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 317 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 454 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 42 | 7.0 |
| 1988 | 202 | 6th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 34 | 6.0 |
| 1989 | 144 | 5th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 44 | 3.0 |
| 1991 | 277 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 65 | 3.5 |
| 1992 | 66 | 4th lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 26 | 3.1 |
| 1993 | 1,004 | 15th lowest of 15 · 317% of median | 116 | 14.0 |
| 1994 | 515 | 11th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 63 | 11.4 |
| 1995 | 981 | 14th lowest of 15 · 310% of median | 66 | 14.3 |
| 1996 | 317 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 6.1 |
| 1997 | 624 | 12th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 140 | 5.7 |
| 1998 | 362 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 71 | 3.6 |
| 1999 | 886 | 13th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | 123 | 7.5 |
| 2000 | 32 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 35 | 1.6 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 72 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5338 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2021 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.