Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MANITOU RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 1003657 · 3 · FRENCH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:09 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 1912-03-26 — 183rd 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: BOHART RANCH WELL NO 15 (1912-02-21). Immediately behind: MONUMENT WELL NO 1 (1912-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22730.0 | 1912-03-26 | 1919-06-02 | 710.8861 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUN | 131A, R54 |
| 56927.0 | 2005-11-10 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOMUN | |
| 57708.56927 | 2005-11-10 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STOMUN | |
| 57708.56927 | 2005-11-10 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOMUN |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
18CW3047, 08CW0061, CA13801, CA10146.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
18CW3047 | 1 | 2008-12-31 | S |
08CW0061 | 4 | 2008-12-31 | O, S |
CA13801 | 1 | 1954-02-08 | O |
CA10146 | 3 | 1919-06-02 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 34 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 34 AF — 100% of that, and 5th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 1 | 1st lowest of 13 · 3% of median | 30 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 36 | 10th lowest of 13 · 106% of median | 273 | 2.4 |
| 2015 | 35 | 8th lowest of 13 · 103% of median | 275 | 0.7 |
| 2016 | 33 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 97% of median | 244 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 41 | 12th lowest of 13 · 121% of median | 276 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 81 | 13th lowest of 13 · 238% of median | 365 | 4.4 |
| 2019 | 37 | 11th lowest of 13 · 109% of median | 365 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | 33 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 97% of median | 245 | 2.6 |
| 2021 | 35 | 8th lowest of 13 · 103% of median | 365 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | 34 | 5th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 1 | 1st lowest of 13 · 3% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2024 | 34 | 5th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 366 | 5.0 |
| 2025 | 34 | 5th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 304 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3838 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2013-2025 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.