Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EMANUEL GANT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500592 · 1 · WEST MAMM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:11 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 1885-10-25 — 39th most senior of the 1378 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: UPPER MAMM CREEK DITCH (1885-10-20). Immediately behind: WEST DIVIDE CREEK DITCH (1885-11-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13082.0 | 1885-10-25 | 1888-05-05 | 2.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 41 |
| 50403.46887 | 1978-05-16 | 1988-12-31 | 2.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50403.47635 | 1980-06-02 | 1988-12-31 | 1.58 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50403.48737 | 1983-06-09 | 1988-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
88CW0284, CA0089, 88CW0050.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0284 | 3 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA0089 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
88CW0050 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | 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 152 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 290 AF — 191% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | — | 48 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 18 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | — | 42 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 132 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 40 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 277 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | — | 70 | 2.8 |
| 2006 | 416 | 13th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | — | 73 | 3.6 |
| 2007 | 603 | 15th lowest of 15 · 397% of median | — | 97 | 3.6 |
| 2014 | 574 | 14th lowest of 15 · 378% of median | — | 158 | 1.9 |
| 2015 | 152 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 151 | 2.2 |
| 2016 | 246 | 10th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | — | 114 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 127 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | — | 62 | 2.7 |
| 2019 | 206 | 9th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | — | 85 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 57 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | — | 63 | 0.5 |
| 2022 | 96 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 32 | 2.2 |
| 2024 | 290 | 12th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | — | 94 | 2.8 |
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 | 3148 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.