Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARTIN LILY POND FEEDER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5000768 · 1 · MUDDY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:52 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 1939-05-27 — 147th most senior of the 360 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: L SEEPAGE DITCH (1929-10-25). Immediately behind: MARTIN LILY POND RESERVOIR (1939-05-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32653.0 | 1939-05-27 | 1941-07-17 | 15.05 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 47827.0 | 1980-12-11 | 1980-12-31 | 18.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
93CW0173, 87CW0171, 80CW0467, CA0764.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0173 | 2 | 1980-12-31 | S |
87CW0171 | 1 | 1980-12-31 | S |
80CW0467 | 1 | 1980-12-31 | S |
CA0764 | 3 | 1941-07-17 | 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 787 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 781 AF — 99% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 827 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 86 | 13.2 |
| 1995 | 1,028 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 57 | 18.0 |
| 1996 | 627 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 47 | 10.3 |
| 1997 | 1,157 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 71 | 10.5 |
| 1998 | 844 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 63 | 16.9 |
| 1999 | 756 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 42 | 13.0 |
| 2000 | 1,127 | 13th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 62 | 13.5 |
| 2001 | 709 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 37 | 12.1 |
| 2002 | 787 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 91 | 14.0 |
| 2003 | 943 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 59 | 16.2 |
| 2004 | 742 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 53 | 11.4 |
| 2005 | 1,925 | 15th lowest of 15 · 245% of median | 134 | 22.6 |
| 2006 | 660 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 36 | 14.3 |
| 2007 | 59 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 34 | 0.9 |
| 2008 | 781 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 80 | 9.5 |
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 | 1499 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1987-2008 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.