Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FRUITLAND CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 4000549 · 1 · CRYSTAL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:22 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 1901-05-17 — 1280th most senior of the 4661 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: DYER FORK DITCH (1901-05-15). Immediately behind: FRUITLAND RESERVOIR (1901-05-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21263.18764 | 1901-05-17 | 1914-06-23 | 67.4375 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A65 |
| 25807.18764 | 1901-05-17 | 1930-02-10 | 300.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 25807.23557 | 1914-07-01 | 1930-02-10 | 74.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G84 |
| 31924.18764 | 1901-05-17 | 1954-03-20 | 95.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTKOTH | J83, J84, |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA4808, 94CW0018, CA3503, CA2030, CA0617.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4808 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
94CW0018 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
CA3503 | 4 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2030 | 2 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | 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 6,778 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 15,570 AF — 230% 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 | 12,303 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 81 | 168.0 |
| 2011 | 17,519 | 13th lowest of 15 · 258% of median | 116 | 232.0 |
| 2012 | 575 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 36 | 20.0 |
| 2013 | 1,242 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 47 | 48.0 |
| 2014 | 11,300 | 10th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 82 | 142.0 |
| 2015 | 9,761 | 9th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 96 | 170.0 |
| 2016 | 4,706 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 64 | 85.0 |
| 2017 | 5,258 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 73 | 100.0 |
| 2018 | 61 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 9 | 4.4 |
| 2019 | 25,348 | 15th lowest of 15 · 374% of median | 168 | 216.0 |
| 2020 | 5,566 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 76 | 59.5 |
| 2021 | 2,193 | 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 26 | 58.1 |
| 2022 | 6,778 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 53 | 104.3 |
| 2023 | 17,903 | 14th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 115 | 138.6 |
| 2024 | 15,570 | 12th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 140 | 73.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3835 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.