Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LONE CONE RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 6003511 · 3 · NATURITA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 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 1902-05-22 — 162nd 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: BOULDER PLACER DITCH (1901-07-29). Immediately behind: SKALLA WELL (1902-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19134.0 | 1902-05-22 | 1911-06-03 | 840.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 4 |
| 22621.0 | 1911-12-08 | 1914-11-02 | 1000.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 7 |
| 32811.28671 | 1928-07-01 | 1952-07-10 | 425.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 377 |
| 58786.0 | 2010-12-13 | 2010-12-31 | 0.0 | 4000.0 | A | IRRMUNFISPWR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
10CW0203, CA5882, 84CW0093, CA1621, CA1627.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0203 | 1 | 2010-12-31 | S |
CA5882 | 2 | 1952-07-10 | S |
84CW0093 | 1 | 1952-07-10 | S |
CA1621 | 1 | 1914-11-02 | O |
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 1,662 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 66 AF — 4% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 1,911 | 11th lowest of 14 · 115% of median | — | 27 | 43.9 |
| 2011 | — | no recorded volume | 755 | 0 | — |
| 2012 | 1,876 | 10th lowest of 14 · 113% of median | 1,328 | 218 | 24.5 |
| 2013 | 1,337 | 6th lowest of 14 · 80% of median | — | 192 | 15.1 |
| 2014 | 437 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 26% of median | — | 72 | 45.7 |
| 2015 | 2,248 | 12th lowest of 14 · 135% of median | — | 184 | 41.0 |
| 2016 | 1,566 | 7th lowest of 14 · 94% of median | — | 184 | 32.6 |
| 2017 | 1,757 | 8th lowest of 14 · 106% of median | — | 183 | 27.0 |
| 2018 | 550 | 4th lowest of 14 · 33% of median | — | 58 | 95.0 |
| 2019 | 1,873 | 9th lowest of 14 · 113% of median | 1,334 | 121 | 21.8 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 565 | 12 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 3,656 | 13th lowest of 14 · 220% of median | 325 | 226 | 11.3 |
| 2022 | 4,397 | 14th lowest of 14 · 265% of median | 726 | 365 | 13.4 |
| 2023 | 1,119 | 5th lowest of 14 · 67% of median | 881 | 330 | 42.9 |
| 2024 | 66 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 4% of median | 869 | 172 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4298 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.