Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PAGOSA HOT SPRINGS
Structure dossier · WDID 2905051 · 4 · SAN JUAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:25 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1935-06-01 — 280th most senior of the 853 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: SUNSET COTTAGES D NO 1 (1933-01-01). Immediately behind: GALE RESERVOIR NO. 1 (1935-12-31).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41016.31197 | 1935-06-01 | 1968-12-19 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-52 |
| 48212.16954 | 1896-06-01 | 1982-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | GEO | |
| 48269.0 | 1982-02-26 | 1982-12-31 | 0.3 | 0.7 | C | GEO |
Legal record & documents
Court cases attached to this structure's rights:
68-52.
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 594 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 428 AF — 72% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 109 | 4th lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 61 | 0.9 |
| 2009 | 656 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 750 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 363 | 1.1 |
| 2011 | 843 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 365 | 1.4 |
| 2012 | 1,054 | 15th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 366 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 1,018 | 14th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 365 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 987 | 13th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 365 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 606 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 272 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 17 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 61 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 107 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 365 | 0.1 |
| 2019 | 106 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 359 | 0.1 |
| 2020 | 109 | 4th lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 360 | 0.2 |
| 2021 | 249 | 6th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 365 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 594 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 1.1 |
| 2023 | 428 | 7th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 304 | 0.7 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9052 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2023 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.