Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PENNINGTON-CONWAY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3001008 · 1 · FLORIDA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1881-05-15 — 206th most senior of the 2277 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: CAMPION DITCH (1881-05-15). Immediately behind: MCCLUER AND MURRAY DITCH (1881-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11458.0 | 1881-05-15 | 1923-11-08 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-10 |
| 12158.0 | 1883-04-15 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-14 |
| 13284.0 | 1886-05-15 | 1923-11-08 | 0.4834 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-20 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W1676, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1676 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 3 | 1923-11-08 | 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 398 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 337 AF — 85% of that, and 3rd 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 | 461 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | — | 174 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 475 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | — | 160 | 2.6 |
| 2013 | 197 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | — | 133 | 2.4 |
| 2014 | 522 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | — | 168 | 3.3 |
| 2015 | 412 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 161 | 3.3 |
| 2016 | 646 | 15th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | — | 180 | 2.8 |
| 2017 | 645 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | — | 168 | 3.3 |
| 2018 | 350 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 146 | 3.4 |
| 2019 | 538 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 147 | 4.0 |
| 2020 | 398 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 214 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 393 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | — | 365 | 2.3 |
| 2022 | 344 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 396 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 365 | 3.5 |
| 2024 | 312 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 366 | 2.8 |
| 2025 | 337 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | — | 304 | 3.3 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 18077 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 87% of the irrigation seasons in 1928-2025 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.