Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EAST BEND D
Structure dossier · WDID 2200535 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1883-04-21 — 109th 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: BALL BROS OVERFLOW NO 2 (1883-04-21). Immediately behind: EAST BEND NO 2 D (1883-04-21).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12348.12164 | 1883-04-21 | 1890-10-03 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 88 |
| 12934.0 | 1885-05-30 | 1890-10-03 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 101 |
| 13027.0 | 1885-08-31 | 1890-10-03 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 13392.0 | 1886-08-31 | 1890-10-03 | 3.65 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 109 |
| 13540.0 | 1887-01-26 | 1890-10-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 110 |
| 13826.0 | 1887-11-08 | 1890-10-03 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121 |
| 13938.0 | 1888-02-28 | 1890-10-03 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 125 |
| 14123.0 | 1888-08-31 | 1890-10-03 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 135 |
| 14488.0 | 1889-08-31 | 1890-10-03 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 138 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2885, 10/03/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2885 | 3 | 1890-10-03 | S |
10/03/1890 | 9 | 1890-10-03 | 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 1,488 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,480 AF — 167% of that, and 14th 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 | 1,413 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 39 | 32.0 |
| 2012 | 963 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 50 | 19.7 |
| 2013 | 16 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 3 | 8.0 |
| 2014 | 1,628 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 47 | 37.4 |
| 2015 | 1,238 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 38 | 26.0 |
| 2016 | 1,671 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 49 | 24.2 |
| 2017 | 2,231 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 60 | 34.4 |
| 2018 | 910 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 33 | 22.4 |
| 2019 | 1,992 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 48 | 30.0 |
| 2020 | 258 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 11 | 20.0 |
| 2021 | 1,709 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 41 | 37.4 |
| 2022 | 1,488 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 35 | 37.4 |
| 2023 | 2,925 | 15th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 53 | 37.4 |
| 2024 | 1,173 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 38 | 22.4 |
| 2025 | 2,480 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 62 | 37.4 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4737 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% 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.