Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RICHFIELD CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 2200616 · 1 · CONEJOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:59 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 1881-10-12 — 97th 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: LOS OJOS D NO 2 (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: W2969 WELL NO 01 (1881-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11608.0 | 1881-10-12 | 1883-10-22 | 56.24 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 59 |
| 13077.0 | 1885-10-20 | 1890-10-03 | 112.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 105 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
10/03/1890, 10/22/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10/03/1890 | 1 | 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 5,074 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 8,193 AF — 162% 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 | 3,743 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 54 | 67.0 |
| 2012 | 5,074 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 82.3 |
| 2013 | 2,580 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 32 | 56.2 |
| 2014 | 7,920 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 64 | 133.0 |
| 2015 | 6,677 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 60 | 130.0 |
| 2016 | 6,250 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 63 | 104.0 |
| 2017 | 9,272 | 15th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 156 | 107.0 |
| 2018 | 3,591 | 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 305 | 65.0 |
| 2019 | 6,263 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 117 | 62.0 |
| 2020 | 3,245 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 33 | 75.0 |
| 2021 | 148 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 3 | 37.4 |
| 2022 | 4,636 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 214 | 90.0 |
| 2023 | 937 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 22 | 42.5 |
| 2024 | 5,588 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 70 | 85.0 |
| 2025 | 8,193 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 223 | 92.3 |
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 | 5984 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% 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.