Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WALES SHELLABARGER D 1
Structure dossier · WDID 2500677 · 1 · RITO ALTO CREEK · 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 1870-05-01 — 20th most senior of the 847 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: WALES D 2 (1870-05-01). Immediately behind: BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 5 (1870-05-10).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7426.0 | 1870-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 7426.0 | 1870-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9A |
| 8341.0 | 1872-11-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 26 |
| 8386.0 | 1872-12-16 | 1890-03-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 8390.0 | 1872-12-20 | 1890-03-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28 |
| 8541.0 | 1873-05-20 | 1890-03-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 34 |
| 13985.0 | 1888-04-15 | 1890-03-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 123 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3803, 03/28/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3803 | 4 | 1890-03-28 | O |
03/28/1890 | 3 | 1890-03-28 | 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 939 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 89 AF — 10% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,773 | 13th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 112 | 14.7 |
| 2011 | 314 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 38 | 4.4 |
| 2012 | 460 | 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 163 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 1,969 | 14th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 160 | 9.7 |
| 2014 | 2,896 | 15th lowest of 15 · 308% of median | 174 | 12.3 |
| 2015 | 510 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 98 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 1,558 | 12th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 162 | 7.3 |
| 2017 | 1,284 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 142 | 7.9 |
| 2018 | 878 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 178 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 1,175 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 187 | 10.1 |
| 2020 | 975 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 187 | 4.7 |
| 2021 | 939 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 161 | 4.7 |
| 2022 | 167 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 42 | 3.5 |
| 2024 | 642 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 197 | 5.2 |
| 2025 | 89 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 73 | 2.2 |
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 (8/10 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10817 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% 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.