Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EL CODA D
Structure dossier · WDID 2200538 · 1 · RIO SAN ANTONIO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1855-08-04 — 9th 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: HEADS MILL & IRG D (1855-06-01). Immediately behind: LLANO D (1855-08-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2042.0 | 1855-08-04 | 1883-10-22 | 25.18 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 3 |
| 21322.0 | 1908-05-18 | 1914-01-14 | 51.77 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 178 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0741, 91CW0032, 18CW3005, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0741 | 1 | 1914-01-14 | S |
91CW0032 | 1 | 1914-01-14 | S |
18CW3005 | 1 | 1914-01-14 | 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 6,891 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 6,891 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 5,710 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 123 | 25.0 |
| 2012 | 5,738 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 214 | 75.0 |
| 2013 | 7,915 | 14th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 215 | 75.0 |
| 2014 | 5,928 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 155 | 65.0 |
| 2015 | 8,373 | 15th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 188 | 51.8 |
| 2016 | 7,896 | 13th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 202 | 77.0 |
| 2017 | 7,683 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 181 | 77.0 |
| 2018 | 4,816 | 1st lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 211 | 25.0 |
| 2019 | 6,126 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 160 | 70.0 |
| 2020 | 5,974 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 215 | 25.0 |
| 2021 | 6,269 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 170 | 25.8 |
| 2022 | 6,921 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 158 | 25.2 |
| 2023 | 7,219 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 162 | 76.0 |
| 2024 | 7,793 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 189 | 25.2 |
| 2025 | 6,891 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 222 | 50.0 |
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 | 15654 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 97% 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.