Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FLANNERY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800679 · 1 · THREEMILE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:53 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 1885-12-15 — 239th most senior of the 4788 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: DAVIGNON DITCH (1888-09-24). Immediately behind: LOST BASIN DITCH (1889-06-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14376.13133 | 1885-12-15 | 1892-02-08 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 136B |
| 47481.4529 | 1973-12-31 | 1980-12-31 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMSTKOTH |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
84CW0328, 80CW0271, CA0420.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
84CW0328 | 3 | 1980-12-31 | S |
80CW0271 | 1 | 1980-12-31 | S |
CA0420 | 1 | 1892-02-08 | 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 187 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 72 AF — 38% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1996 | 205 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 58 | 3.5 |
| 1997 | 307 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | — | 59 | 4.5 |
| 1998 | 360 | 14th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | — | 93 | 3.5 |
| 1999 | 269 | 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | — | 95 | 2.3 |
| 2000 | 249 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | — | 123 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 172 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 47 | 3.6 |
| 2004 | 187 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 59 | 2.2 |
| 2005 | 203 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 63 | 3.3 |
| 2006 | 133 | 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | — | 26 | 3.7 |
| 2018 | 171 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 74 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 124 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | — | 43 | 2.5 |
| 2020 | 651 | 15th lowest of 15 · 348% of median | — | 165 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | — | 28 | 2.0 |
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 (7/10 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 | 1085 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2022 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.