Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EL PASO COUNTY CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 1000601 · 1 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:16 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 1861-03-20 — 7th most senior of the 2864 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: HARMES DITCH (1861-03-20). Immediately behind: MANITOU IRON SPRINGS P/L (1861-03-20).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4097.0 | 1861-03-20 | 1882-03-06 | 1.58 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 2 |
| 4098.0 | 1861-03-21 | 1882-03-06 | 22.4 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 3 |
| 5113.0 | 1863-12-31 | 1882-03-06 | 8.37 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 12 |
| 5194.0 | 1864-03-21 | 1882-03-06 | 8.82 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 19 |
| 7934.0 | 1871-09-21 | 1882-03-06 | 59.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 32 |
| 11443.0 | 1881-04-30 | 1882-03-06 | 3.54 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 46 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA13801, CA0751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13801 | 7 | 1882-03-06 | O |
CA0751 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | 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 2,486 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1992, came in at 415 AF — 17% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 2,937 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 286 | 10.3 |
| 1979 | 2,866 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 313 | 12.6 |
| 1980 | 2,739 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 282 | 11.8 |
| 1981 | 2,424 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 288 | 8.9 |
| 1982 | 1,998 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 270 | 7.9 |
| 1983 | 1,778 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 228 | 15.5 |
| 1984 | 1,793 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 228 | 17.5 |
| 1985 | 2,429 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 265 | 11.2 |
| 1986 | 3,492 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 307 | 11.2 |
| 1987 | 2,486 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 287 | 9.1 |
| 1988 | 2,498 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 338 | 8.2 |
| 1989 | 2,169 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 327 | 7.0 |
| 1990 | 5,281 | 15th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 355 | 606.0 |
| 1991 | 3,656 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 332 | 13.0 |
| 1992 | 415 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 40 | 32.0 |
Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 97.7% of a median season / 58.9% dry-year.
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 A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12613 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 81% of the irrigation seasons in 1920-1992 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.