Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WALES SHELLABARGER D 2
Structure dossier · WDID 2500678 · 1 · RITO ALTO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:56 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 1870-07-01 — 43rd 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: BACA GRANT 4 IRR D 10 (1870-07-01). Immediately behind: SCHULTZ DITTRICH NO 14 D (1870-09-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7487.0 | 1870-07-01 | 1890-03-28 | 4.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
| 8310.0 | 1872-10-01 | 1890-03-28 | 6.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
| 10866.0 | 1879-10-01 | 1890-03-28 | 6.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 66 |
| 11079.0 | 1880-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 70 |
| 12554.0 | 1884-05-15 | 1890-03-28 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 98 |
| 13665.0 | 1887-05-31 | 1890-03-28 | 6.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 117 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3734, 03/28/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3734 | 1 | 1890-03-28 | O |
03/28/1890 | 5 | 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 841 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 332 AF — 40% of that, and 4th 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 | 836 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 66 | 8.9 |
| 2011 | 219 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 26 | 5.8 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 1,440 | 9th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 93 | 13.2 |
| 2014 | 2,656 | 13th lowest of 15 · 316% of median | 105 | 34.1 |
| 2015 | 3,832 | 14th lowest of 15 · 456% of median | 87 | 50.0 |
| 2016 | 1,918 | 12th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 162 | 13.5 |
| 2017 | 841 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 95 | 11.6 |
| 2018 | 136 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 23 | 3.5 |
| 2019 | 1,688 | 11th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 104 | 18.0 |
| 2020 | 781 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 94 | 10.8 |
| 2021 | 717 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 100 | 4.4 |
| 2022 | 1,457 | 10th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 143 | 10.8 |
| 2024 | 6,097 | 15th lowest of 15 · 725% of median | 171 | 21.6 |
| 2025 | 332 | 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 83 | 7.0 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11698 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 72% 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.