Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FORT LYON STORAGE CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 1700648 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:00 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 1884-04-15 — 10th most senior of the 1909 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: FORT LYON CANAL (1884-04-15). Immediately behind: NINE MILE CANAL (1887-05-10).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12524.0 | 1884-04-15 | 1905-04-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | 4 |
| 13574.0 | 1887-03-01 | 1905-04-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | 6 |
| 15949.0 | 1893-08-31 | 1905-04-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | 25 |
| 20478.0 | 1906-01-25 | 1928-11-08 | 840.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R27.5 |
| 21347.0 | 1908-06-12 | 1928-11-08 | 840.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R37 |
| 21547.0 | 1908-12-29 | 1928-11-08 | 840.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R41 |
| 21974.0 | 1910-03-01 | 1928-11-08 | 1466.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R50 |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
10CW0004, 11/08/1928, 08/30/1922, 79CW0178.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0004 | 5 | 2010-12-31 | S |
11/08/1928 | 5 | 1928-11-08 | S |
08/30/1922 | 1 | 1922-08-30 | S |
79CW0178 | 3 | 1905-04-08 | 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 41,061 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 13,672 AF — 33% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 41,061 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 73 | 455.0 |
| 2012 | 15,636 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 75 | 403.0 |
| 2013 | 24,662 | 6th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 50 | 371.0 |
| 2014 | 21,873 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 59 | 446.0 |
| 2015 | 142,384 | 15th lowest of 15 · 347% of median | 173 | 952.0 |
| 2016 | 87,837 | 14th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 162 | 743.0 |
| 2017 | 73,679 | 13th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 233 | 660.0 |
| 2018 | 23,361 | 5th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 71 | 396.0 |
| 2019 | 46,682 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 115 | 596.0 |
| 2020 | 55,804 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 98 | 386.0 |
| 2021 | 27,381 | 7th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 98 | 299.0 |
| 2022 | 11,090 | 1st lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 108 | 352.0 |
| 2023 | 49,159 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 109 | 314.0 |
| 2024 | 53,159 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 120 | 808.0 |
| 2025 | 13,672 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 60 | 396.0 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12647 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2025 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.