Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOS OJOS D NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 2200585 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:16 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 1881-05-01 — 96th 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: ALAMO D (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: RICHFIELD CANAL (1881-10-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1883-10-22 | 4.45 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 58 |
| 11879.0 | 1882-07-10 | 1883-10-22 | 4.08 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 63 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2631, 87CW0041, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2631 | 1 | 1883-10-22 | O |
87CW0041 | 1 | 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 287 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,244 AF — 433% of that, and 15th 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 | 493 | 13th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 50 | 8.5 |
| 2012 | 76 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 28 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 258 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 31 | 8.5 |
| 2014 | 559 | 14th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 72 | 8.5 |
| 2015 | 115 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 19 | 4.5 |
| 2016 | 250 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 26 | 8.5 |
| 2017 | 355 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 58 | 8.5 |
| 2018 | 274 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 29 | 8.5 |
| 2019 | 278 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 56 | 6.0 |
| 2020 | 463 | 12th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 33 | 8.5 |
| 2021 | 59 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 6 | 8.5 |
| 2022 | 346 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 37 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 287 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 18 | 8.5 |
| 2024 | 450 | 11th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 39 | 8.5 |
| 2025 | 1,244 | 15th lowest of 15 · 433% of median | 90 | 8.5 |
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 | 4223 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% 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.