Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHIQUITO DOLORES NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 7300505 · 1 · LITTLE DOLORES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:23 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 1886-04-01 — 5th most senior of the 221 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: ROTH PASTURE PUMPING PLANT (1885-12-31). Immediately behind: ROBBINS DITCH (1886-04-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17610.1324 | 1886-04-01 | 1901-05-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99 |
| 17610.15074 | 1891-04-09 | 1901-05-02 | 1.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 44559.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1972-12-31 | 4.43 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W1246, W0553, CA1131.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1246 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
W0553 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
CA1131 | 2 | 1901-05-02 | 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 910 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 363 AF — 40% of that, and 2nd 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 | 1,055 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | — | 125 | 9.3 |
| 2012 | 897 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | — | 205 | 6.6 |
| 2013 | 570 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 178 | 6.1 |
| 2014 | 1,111 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 82 | 193 | 9.5 |
| 2015 | 910 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 129 | 218 | 6.8 |
| 2016 | 1,581 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 129 | 211 | 11.3 |
| 2017 | 1,240 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 30 | 205 | 9.3 |
| 2018 | 328 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 34 | 93 | 3.9 |
| 2019 | 673 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 34 | 143 | 8.4 |
| 2020 | 454 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 65 | 90 | 8.3 |
| 2021 | 496 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 0 | 94 | 5.6 |
| 2022 | 1,191 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 20 | 269 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 1,614 | 15th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | — | 334 | 8.6 |
| 2024 | 1,060 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | — | 189 | 11.7 |
| 2025 | 363 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | — | 101 | 4.4 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6583 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.