Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
A D ARCHULETA D
Structure dossier · WDID 2200500 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:48 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 1870-08-20 — 55th most senior of the 1764 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: GALBIS D (1870-07-01). Immediately behind: SANCHES D (1870-08-20).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7537.0 | 1870-08-20 | 1883-10-22 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 37 |
| 11734.0 | 1882-02-15 | 1883-10-22 | 10.31 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 60 |
| 12529.0 | 1884-04-20 | 1890-10-03 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 96 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
10/03/1890, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10/03/1890 | 1 | 1890-10-03 | S |
10/22/1883 | 2 | 1883-10-22 | 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 657 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2013, came in at 12 AF — 2% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 514 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 22 | 19.0 |
| 1997 | 657 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 30 | 19.0 |
| 1998 | 666 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 53 | 19.0 |
| 1999 | 766 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 24 | 19.0 |
| 2000 | 432 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 30 | 19.0 |
| 2001 | 1,384 | 15th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 47 | 19.0 |
| 2003 | 71 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 3 | 18.0 |
| 2004 | 1,147 | 13th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 54 | 19.3 |
| 2005 | 1,264 | 14th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 60 | 19.8 |
| 2006 | 593 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 39 | 19.3 |
| 2007 | 805 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 58 | 11.4 |
| 2010 | 272 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 25 | 11.3 |
| 2011 | 1,090 | 12th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 39 | 19.3 |
| 2012 | 61 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 35 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 12 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 11 | 1.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 623 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 5% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2013 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.