Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BEL AIRE HATCHERY WATER
Structure dossier · WDID 4300538 · 1 · NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 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 1935-07-07 — 1204th most senior of the 3293 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: FRASER DITCH (1934-07-03). Immediately behind: BEL AIRE ALT PT (1935-07-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39776.31233 | 1935-07-07 | 1966-11-21 | 8.9 | 0.0 | C | RECFISWLD | 626 |
| 39776.39629 | 1958-07-02 | 1966-11-21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOMWLD | 672 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1269, 91CW0134.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1269 | 1 | 1966-11-21 | S |
91CW0134 | 3 | 1966-11-21 | 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 1,850 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 535 AF — 29% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 3,020 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 366 | 9.0 |
| 2005 | 2,033 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 2006 | 1,448 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 1,611 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 320 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 1,927 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 366 | 4.0 |
| 2009 | 3,096 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 365 | 8.4 |
| 2010 | 4,294 | 15th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 365 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 2,163 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 365 | 8.5 |
| 2012 | 1,486 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 366 | 4.0 |
| 2013 | 1,756 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 365 | 4.5 |
| 2014 | 2,242 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 304 | 9.1 |
| 2015 | 121 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 61 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 1,388 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 366 | 5.0 |
| 2017 | 1,850 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 5.2 |
| 2018 | 535 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 304 | 1.0 |
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 (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 | 7528 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2018 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.