Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FANSHER HORSEFLY NO 1D
Structure dossier · WDID 4100523 · 1 · HORSEFLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1889-04-01 — 170th most senior of the 1104 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: FANSHER HORSEFLY NO 2 D (1889-04-01). Immediately behind: HORSEFLY DITCH (1889-04-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33575.14336 | 1889-04-01 | 1954-01-29 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA6466.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6466 | 1 | 1954-01-29 | 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 340 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 1,885 AF — 554% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 242 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 129 | 1.2 |
| 1993 | 182 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 92 | 1.2 |
| 1994 | 245 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 127 | 1.3 |
| 1995 | 340 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 327 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 125 | 1.5 |
| 1997 | 274 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 110 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 282 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 99 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 390 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 144 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 124 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 62 | 1.2 |
| 2002 | 1,112 | 11th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | 197 | 4.1 |
| 2003 | 1,927 | 14th lowest of 15 · 567% of median | 186 | 8.4 |
| 2004 | 466 | 10th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 151 | 1.9 |
| 2005 | 2,006 | 15th lowest of 15 · 590% of median | 181 | 7.5 |
| 2006 | 1,195 | 12th lowest of 15 · 352% of median | 93 | 12.7 |
| 2007 | 1,885 | 13th lowest of 15 · 554% of median | 168 | 9.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+79 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4361 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2007 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.