Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LIGHTLEY D & LINTON ENLT
Structure dossier · WDID 5900616 · 1 · GUNNISON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:53 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 1885-04-30 — 108th most senior of the 2360 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: MARSHALL NO 1 DITCH (1884-08-31). Immediately behind: PRICE CREEK DITCH (1885-04-30).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12904.0 | 1885-04-30 | 1906-09-14 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 52 |
| 17684.0 | 1898-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 124 |
| 19112.0 | 1902-04-30 | 1906-09-14 | 3.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 151 |
| 19875.0 | 1904-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 171 |
| 30667.12904 | 1885-04-30 | 1941-04-29 | 17.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317 |
| 30667.30619 | 1933-10-31 | 1941-04-29 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 468 |
| 55912.0 | 2003-01-30 | 2003-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRSTK |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
10CW0042, 03CW0093, CA2021, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0042 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
03CW0093 | 3 | 2003-12-31 | O, S |
CA2021 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | S |
CA1325 | 4 | 1906-09-14 | 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 2,459 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,390 AF — 56% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4,031 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 182 | 17.9 |
| 2012 | 2,293 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 204 | 13.0 |
| 2013 | 3,545 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 178 | 19.6 |
| 2014 | 3,952 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 172 | 23.1 |
| 2015 | 3,247 | 9th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 172 | 17.0 |
| 2016 | 1,845 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 169 | 12.8 |
| 2017 | 5,449 | 15th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 197 | 23.4 |
| 2018 | 2,371 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 185 | 13.5 |
| 2019 | 3,654 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 179 | 21.9 |
| 2020 | 1,462 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 98 | 13.5 |
| 2021 | 2,459 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 196 | 17.7 |
| 2022 | 3,315 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 196 | 24.6 |
| 2023 | 1,993 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 148 | 12.4 |
| 2024 | 1,201 | 1st lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 149 | 6.2 |
| 2025 | 1,390 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 94 | 16.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-155 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8656 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 80% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.