Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SALAZAR D
Structure dossier · WDID 2400579 · 1 · RITO SECO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 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 1852-04-10 — 3rd most senior of the 453 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: A A SALAZAR D 2 (1852-04-10). Immediately behind: SAN LUIS PEOPLES D (1852-04-10).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 831.0 | 1852-04-10 | 1889-06-14 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 1 |
| 14410.02922 | 1857-12-31 | 1905-12-14 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 25 |
| 14410.04018 | 1860-12-31 | 1905-12-14 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 27 |
| 16932.0 | 1896-05-10 | 1905-12-14 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 57 |
| 19734.0 | 1904-01-12 | 1905-12-14 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 62 |
| 24550.0 | 1917-03-20 | 1935-02-11 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 1934-22 |
| 24562.0 | 1917-04-01 | 1935-02-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 1934-23 |
| 24927.0 | 1918-04-01 | 1935-02-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISSTKAUGOTHWLD | 1934-27 |
Legal record & documents
23 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0885, 07CW0042, CA1390, 12/14/1905.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0885 | 1 | 1935-02-11 | S |
07CW0042 | 16 | 1935-02-11 | O, S |
CA1390 | 4 | 1905-12-14 | O, S |
12/14/1905 | 2 | 1905-12-14 | 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 1,044 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 630 AF — 60% of that, and 5th 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 | 209 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 72 | 1.7 |
| 2012 | 736 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 127 | 5.7 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 1,280 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 215 | 11.8 |
| 2016 | 2,036 | 12th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 272 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 2,496 | 15th lowest of 15 · 239% of median | 343 | 9.9 |
| 2018 | 300 | 4th lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 242 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 2,051 | 13th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 227 | 12.1 |
| 2020 | 1,044 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 223 | 10.4 |
| 2021 | 2,447 | 14th lowest of 15 · 234% of median | 227 | 24.4 |
| 2022 | 1,034 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 246 | 8.9 |
| 2023 | 1,631 | 11th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 251 | 19.2 |
| 2024 | 1,112 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 276 | 8.8 |
| 2025 | 630 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 218 | 6.3 |
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 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11809 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.