Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OHIO KOKOMO FLOOD & WD
Structure dossier · WDID 6000725 · 1 · SAN MIGUEL RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:59 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 1903-06-01 — 168th 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: HOUSE FLOOD WASTE (1903-06-01). Immediately behind: COKER DITCH NO 1 (1903-06-04).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19509.0 | 1903-06-01 | 1911-06-03 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRAUGEVPRCH | 106 |
| 30604.1951 | 1903-06-02 | 1939-11-01 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRAUGEVPRCH |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4641, 98CW0239, CA1627.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4641 | 1 | 1939-11-01 | S |
98CW0239 | 4 | 1939-11-01 | O, S |
CA1627 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | 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 348 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 84 AF — 24% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 188 | 6th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 120 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 45 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 45 | 0.6 |
| 2012 | 348 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 113 | 2.3 |
| 2013 | 653 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 157 | 2.7 |
| 2014 | 142 | 5th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 152 | 0.9 |
| 2015 | 5 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 29 | 0.2 |
| 2016 | 372 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 141 | 3.3 |
| 2017 | 665 | 15th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 185 | 3.3 |
| 2018 | 439 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 179 | 2.1 |
| 2019 | 340 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 144 | 1.9 |
| 2020 | 449 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 180 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 431 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 182 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 385 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 169 | 2.1 |
| 2023 | 129 | 4th lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 134 | 1.0 |
| 2024 | 84 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 133 | 0.6 |
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 | 6120 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% 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.