Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VALDEZ D
Structure dossier · WDID 2100604 · 1 · ALAMOSA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1870-04-10 — 13th 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: MC CUNNIFF D (1870-03-31). Immediately behind: VALDEZ D BYPASS (1870-04-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7405.0 | 1870-04-10 | 1888-07-11 | 13.55 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRAUGMIN | 9 |
| 13780.0 | 1887-09-23 | 1888-07-11 | 57.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 90 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
93CW0022, 84CW0073, 13CW3014, 07/11/1888, 02CW0012.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0022 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
84CW0073 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
13CW3014 | 1 | 1888-07-11 | O |
07/11/1888 | 2 | 1888-07-11 | O |
02CW0012 | 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 2,695 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,695 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 3,420 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | — | 171 | 14.0 |
| 2012 | 2,355 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 110 | 14.0 |
| 2013 | 2,599 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 151 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 2,873 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | — | 149 | 54.5 |
| 2015 | 2,761 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 134 | 14.9 |
| 2016 | 2,400 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 167 | 14.9 |
| 2017 | 3,490 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 200 | 20.6 |
| 2018 | 1,717 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | — | 220 | 18.1 |
| 2019 | 3,807 | 14th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | — | 216 | 46.0 |
| 2020 | 2,104 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 137 | 14.0 |
| 2021 | 3,456 | 12th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 152 | 19.5 |
| 2022 | 4,730 | 15th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | — | 214 | 20.8 |
| 2023 | 1,701 | 1st lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 132 | 15.2 |
| 2024 | 2,500 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 184 | 19.4 |
| 2025 | 2,695 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 214 | 15.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 12797 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 79% 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.