Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RED MESA WARD RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 3303522 · 3 · HAY GULCH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1905-04-30 — 207th most senior of the 364 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: RED MESA WARD RES SUPPLY (1905-04-30). Immediately behind: HARRIS DITCH (1905-05-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23914.20208 | 1905-04-30 | 1966-03-21 | 1176.0 | 2898.28 | A | IRRMUNINDRECFISDOMOTH | 65-1 |
| 55152.55152 | 2000-12-31 | 2001-12-31 | 656.0 | 3418.0 | A | IRRCOMINDRECFISFIRAUGOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
09CW0066, 01CW0110, 96CW0008, CA0807-C.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0066 | 1 | 2001-12-31 | S |
01CW0110 | 1 | 2001-12-31 | S |
96CW0008 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA0807-C | 2 | 1966-03-21 | 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 899 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 645 AF — 72% of that, and 4th 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 | 924 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 837 | 273 | 31.3 |
| 2012 | 849 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 672 | 288 | 23.7 |
| 2013 | 1,178 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 291 | 365 | 26.2 |
| 2014 | 584 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 889 | 365 | 5.0 |
| 2015 | 1,007 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 636 | 365 | 26.2 |
| 2016 | 995 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 810 | 242 | 10.1 |
| 2017 | 742 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 830 | 178 | 9.6 |
| 2018 | 764 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 815 | 286 | 12.0 |
| 2019 | 899 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 837 | 217 | 19.1 |
| 2020 | 1,121 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 1,118 | 366 | 32.2 |
| 2021 | 575 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 596 | 365 | 24.8 |
| 2022 | 484 | 1st lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 580 | 365 | 10.8 |
| 2023 | 1,386 | 15th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 1,058 | 365 | 27.2 |
| 2024 | 1,046 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 861 | 366 | 32.4 |
| 2025 | 645 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 1,096 | 304 | 54.6 |
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 (8/10 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 | 7054 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2025 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.