Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PIEDRA FALLS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7800604 · 1 · EAST FORK PIEDRA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:47 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1934-07-18 — 131st most senior of the 366 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: EUGENIO GALLEGOS DITCH (1934-04-01). Immediately behind: PIEDRA RETAIN POND FEED (1934-08-16).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30879.0 | 1934-07-18 | 1962-04-19 | 26.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISFIREVPWLD | #302 |
| 42919.0 | 1967-07-05 | 1968-12-19 | 0.0 | 50.0 | C | IRROTH | 68-306 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0308, 06CW0129.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
06CW0129 | 2 | 1962-04-19 | 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 2,853 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,162 AF — 41% of that, and 1st 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 | 3,412 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 135 | 27.3 |
| 2012 | 4,116 | 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 201 | 176 | 26.3 |
| 2013 | 2,853 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 374 | 150 | 30.1 |
| 2014 | 2,675 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 289 | 148 | 21.5 |
| 2015 | 2,468 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 1,166 | 150 | 13.9 |
| 2016 | 1,349 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 171 | 109 | 12.9 |
| 2017 | 1,981 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 22 | 134 | 17.5 |
| 2018 | 3,036 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 0 | 163 | 18.6 |
| 2019 | 2,816 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 681 | 111 | 26.0 |
| 2020 | 2,641 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 0 | 158 | 14.5 |
| 2021 | 3,428 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 0 | 148 | 16.8 |
| 2022 | 4,366 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 2,108 | 145 | 29.7 |
| 2023 | 5,030 | 15th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 945 | 162 | 31.0 |
| 2024 | 4,436 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 667 | 160 | 25.5 |
| 2025 | 1,162 | 1st lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 366 | 131 | 11.3 |
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 | 7928 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 60% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.