Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PISEL CANALS NOS 1&2 D
Structure dossier · WDID 2800869 · 1 · COCHETOPA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:51 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 1881-06-01 — 68th most senior of the 1505 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: SLOUGH DITCH (1881-06-01). Immediately behind: FLICK DITCH (1881-06-15).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.11475 | 1881-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 54 |
| 16192.12054 | 1883-01-01 | 1904-04-29 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 66 |
| 28311.11475 | 1881-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 4.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 222 |
| 28311.12054 | 1883-01-01 | 1943-04-19 | 14.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 230 |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2079, 07CW0155, CA1266, 92CW0092.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 2 | 1943-04-19 | S |
07CW0155 | 8 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 2 | 1904-04-29 | S |
92CW0092 | 2 | 1904-04-29 | 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 2,311 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,615 AF — 200% of that, and 13th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,776 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 88 | 16.5 |
| 2012 | 561 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | — | 77 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 1,100 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 0 | 97 | 8.5 |
| 2014 | 20,177 | 15th lowest of 15 · 873% of median | 18,950 | 169 | 75.3 |
| 2015 | 2,311 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 1,892 | 45 | 33.4 |
| 2016 | 3,307 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 0 | 61 | 34.8 |
| 2017 | 1,740 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 1,351 | 60 | 28.4 |
| 2018 | 1,871 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | — | 91 | 19.3 |
| 2019 | 2,984 | 9th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | — | 66 | 26.9 |
| 2020 | 952 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | — | 63 | 10.0 |
| 2021 | 4,592 | 12th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | — | 94 | 29.6 |
| 2022 | 5,940 | 14th lowest of 15 · 257% of median | — | 92 | 34.4 |
| 2023 | 464 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | — | 30 | 9.0 |
| 2024 | 4,474 | 11th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | — | 118 | 35.5 |
| 2025 | 4,615 | 13th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | — | 120 | 29.6 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2926 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.