Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BIEDELL D NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 2700503 · 1 · LA GARITA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 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 1892-04-30 — 39th most senior of the 1304 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: W1504 WELL NO 02 (1890-12-31). Immediately behind: W2418 WELL NO 05 (1895-06-20).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15461.0 | 1892-04-30 | 1911-10-23 | 2.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
10/23/1911, CA1056, 03/23/1882.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10/23/1911 | 1 | 1911-10-23 | S |
CA1056 | 4 | 1882-03-23 | O |
03/23/1882 | 3 | 1882-03-23 | 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 70 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 16 AF — 23% of that, and 6th 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 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 29 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 22 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 57 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 60 | 1.1 |
| 2014 | 81 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 62 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 214 | 13th lowest of 15 · 306% of median | 131 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 146 | 12th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 133 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 661 | 14th lowest of 15 · 944% of median | 102 | 7.5 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 28 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 672 | 15th lowest of 15 · 960% of median | 85 | 7.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 23 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 70 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 2.3 |
| 2022 | 10 | 5th lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 33 | 5.0 |
| 2023 | 92 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 51 | 5.0 |
| 2024 | 89 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 49 | 2.0 |
| 2025 | 16 | 6th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 44 | 1.5 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3362 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 1952-2025 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.