Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOS PINOS IRRIGATING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100512 · 1 · LOS PINOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:17 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 1878-03-01 — 281st most senior of the 1037 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: THOMPSON-EPPERSON DITCH (1877-12-31). Immediately behind: BAYFIELD RIVER PUMP STATION (1878-03-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10287.0 | 1878-03-01 | 1934-06-12 | 11.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOMSTKAUG | P-4 |
| 55882.53935 | 1997-09-01 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDFIRDOMEVP |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
15CW3017, W1411, CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
15CW3017 | 3 | 2003-12-31 | O, S |
W1411 | 2 | 1934-06-12 | O |
CA1248 | 1 | 1934-06-12 | 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 3,482 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,861 AF — 82% of that, and 1st 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 | 3,642 | 12th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | — | 316 | 16.2 |
| 2012 | 3,851 | 14th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 350 | 13.9 |
| 2013 | 3,962 | 15th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | — | 350 | 11.4 |
| 2014 | 3,482 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 305 | 13.9 |
| 2015 | 3,284 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 312 | 14.0 |
| 2016 | 3,180 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 366 | 13.5 |
| 2017 | 3,537 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 365 | 16.0 |
| 2018 | 3,742 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 329 | 12.8 |
| 2019 | 3,201 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 225 | 15.1 |
| 2020 | 3,562 | 11th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 245 | 13.9 |
| 2021 | 3,321 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 365 | 12.8 |
| 2022 | 2,946 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | — | 365 | 14.1 |
| 2023 | 3,139 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 365 | 12.0 |
| 2024 | 3,542 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 366 | 26.2 |
| 2025 | 2,861 | 1st lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 304 | 12.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-53 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 21045 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.