Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LA GARITA D
Structure dossier · WDID 2700526 · 1 · LA GARITA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:52 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 1940-08-12 — 430th 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: W1964 WELL NO 10 (1940-07-31). Immediately behind: W3032 WELL NO 04 (1940-10-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33096.0 | 1940-08-12 | 1940-08-12 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1416, 17CW3003.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1416 | 1 | 1940-08-12 | S |
17CW3003 | 1 | 1940-08-12 | 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 644 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2001, came in at 134 AF — 21% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 | 1,091 | 10th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 62 | 20.0 |
| 1966 | 3,441 | 13th lowest of 15 · 534% of median | 93 | 30.0 |
| 1967 | 139 | 4th lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 31 | 5.0 |
| 1968 | 3,719 | 14th lowest of 15 · 578% of median | 154 | 15.0 |
| 1969 | 968 | 9th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 82 | 15.0 |
| 1971 | 1,234 | 11th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 77 | 14.0 |
| 1973 | 5,098 | 15th lowest of 15 · 792% of median | 130 | 30.0 |
| 1976 | 28 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 16 | 1.0 |
| 1979 | 512 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 44 | 6.0 |
| 1980 | 567 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 20 | 16.0 |
| 1991 | 314 | 5th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 110 | 3.0 |
| 1992 | 644 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 42 | 13.9 |
| 1993 | 2,981 | 12th lowest of 15 · 463% of median | 55 | 64.0 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 134 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 18 | 4.0 |
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 (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 | 1080 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1958-2001 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.