Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JENNINGS NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900592 · 1 · EAST ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:03 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 1889-02-10 — 130th most senior of the 1758 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: GRANLEE DITCH (1889-04-01). Immediately behind: LAZY DOG NO 1 AP (1889-02-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18313.14286 | 1889-02-10 | 1900-12-17 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 143AAA |
| 32959.25995 | 1921-03-04 | 1943-01-11 | 4.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 220J |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3431, CA0893.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3431 | 1 | 1943-01-11 | S |
CA0893 | 1 | 1900-12-17 | 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 467 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 638 AF — 137% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 262 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 60 | 3.3 |
| 2011 | 603 | 11th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 117 | 3.4 |
| 2012 | 544 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 175 | 3.3 |
| 2013 | 836 | 15th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 173 | 4.5 |
| 2014 | 338 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 80 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 467 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 121 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 645 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 155 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 344 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 133 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 714 | 14th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 166 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 428 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 113 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 329 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 97 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 575 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 162 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 439 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 134 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 271 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 77 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 638 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 156 | 2.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11607 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 73% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.