Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HEADS MILL & IRG D
Structure dossier · WDID 2200554 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1855-06-01 — 8th 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: PLATORO RESERVOIR (1855-03-01). Immediately behind: EL CODA D (1855-08-04).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978.0 | 1855-06-01 | 1883-10-22 | 45.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 2 |
| 10150.0 | 1877-10-15 | 1883-10-22 | 7.54 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 44 |
| 10880.0 | 1879-10-15 | 1883-10-22 | 4.54 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 49 |
| 12540.0 | 1884-05-01 | 1890-10-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
| 14380.0 | 1889-05-15 | 1890-10-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 142 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
00CW0011, CA1978, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
00CW0011 | 4 | 1890-10-03 | O, S |
CA1978 | 2 | 1883-10-22 | O |
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 6,806 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,182 AF — 76% of that, and 2nd 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 | 7,793 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 179 | 59.0 |
| 2012 | 5,909 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 213 | 58.0 |
| 2013 | 6,332 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 179 | 58.0 |
| 2014 | 6,806 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 150 | 78.4 |
| 2015 | 5,761 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 177 | 80.4 |
| 2016 | 7,951 | 12th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 186 | 78.4 |
| 2017 | 7,717 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 192 | 60.0 |
| 2018 | 3,706 | 1st lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 98 | 50.0 |
| 2019 | 9,724 | 15th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 176 | 75.0 |
| 2020 | 5,651 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 133 | 78.4 |
| 2021 | 8,476 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 172 | 78.4 |
| 2022 | 8,734 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 200 | 78.4 |
| 2023 | 7,558 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 166 | 58.0 |
| 2024 | 6,717 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 171 | 57.4 |
| 2025 | 5,182 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 222 | 55.8 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13516 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 84% 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.