Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AN CON IRR D
Structure dossier · WDID 2200502 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:56 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 1876-04-01 — 69th 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: W1578 WELL NO 01 (1875-12-31). Immediately behind: WILLIAM STEWART CO IRR D (1876-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9588.0 | 1876-04-01 | 1883-10-22 | 10.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 42 |
| 12897.0 | 1885-04-23 | 1890-10-03 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 100 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
84CW0054, 10/03/1890, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
84CW0054 | 1 | 1890-10-03 | S |
10/03/1890 | 2 | 1890-10-03 | S |
10/22/1883 | 1 | 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 769 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2013, came in at 860 AF — 112% of that, and 10th 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 | 1,079 | 14th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 53 | 16.0 |
| 1997 | 1,840 | 15th lowest of 15 · 239% of median | 97 | 18.0 |
| 1998 | 822 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 69 | 18.0 |
| 1999 | 480 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 38 | 17.0 |
| 2000 | 418 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 29 | 14.5 |
| 2001 | 347 | 1st lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 41 | 9.0 |
| 2003 | 649 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 45 | 18.5 |
| 2004 | 867 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 92 | 10.8 |
| 2005 | 664 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 57 | 10.7 |
| 2006 | 769 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 10.8 |
| 2007 | 962 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 66 | 10.8 |
| 2010 | 666 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 38 | 18.0 |
| 2011 | 1,050 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 39 | 18.8 |
| 2012 | 480 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 38 | 10.8 |
| 2013 | 860 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 33 | 18.3 |
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 | 2827 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% 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.