Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

MOSCA LIVESTOCK CO D NO2

Structure dossier · WDID 6000704 · 1 · HORSEFLY CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 01:52 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 1898-10-31 — 147th most senior of the 2893 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: MOSCA LIVESTOCK CO D NO1 (1898-10-31). Immediately behind: MOSCA LIVESTOCK CO D NO3 (1898-10-31).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
17836.01898-10-311911-06-03 1.50.0 CIRR 86

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 119 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 69 AF — 58% of that, and 5th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2010 345 12th lowest of 15 · 290% of median 150 2.0
2011 656 15th lowest of 15 · 551% of median 179 4.0
2012 119 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 84 2.7
2013 106 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median 189 0.9
2014 172 9th lowest of 15 · 144% of median 103 1.9
2015 18 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median 26 0.5
2016 209 10th lowest of 15 · 176% of median 123 2.4
2017 390 14th lowest of 15 · 328% of median 178 3.2
2018 57 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median 89 0.4
2019 360 13th lowest of 15 · 302% of median 124 4.6
2020 89 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median 129 1.0
2021 51 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median 81 0.8
2022 46 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median 111 0.5
2023 313 11th lowest of 15 · 263% of median 159 5.5
2024 69 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median 106 0.6

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4507 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.