Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMES ILIUM HYDRO PROJ
Structure dossier · WDID 6000511 · 7 · LAKE FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:51 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 1891-07-01 — 796th most senior of the 2893 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: CARRIERE DITCH (1890-08-25). Immediately behind: EDER CREEK DITCH (1891-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30604.15157 | 1891-07-01 | 1939-11-01 | 83.0 | 0.0 | C | IND | 224 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA4641.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4641 | 1 | 1939-11-01 | 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 12,077 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1999, came in at 25,244 AF — 209% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | 8,023 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 336 | 30.3 |
| 1986 | 3,277 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 244 | 16.9 |
| 1987 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 1988 | 1,280 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 126 | 9.6 |
| 1989 | 4,189 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 248 | 12.3 |
| 1990 | 11,807 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 363 | 38.6 |
| 1991 | 12,077 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 278 | 48.7 |
| 1992 | 17,485 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 366 | 52.0 |
| 1993 | 18,149 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 365 | 56.5 |
| 1994 | 9,659 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 275 | 31.5 |
| 1995 | 27,841 | 15th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 365 | 99.5 |
| 1996 | 17,254 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 366 | 55.1 |
| 1997 | 19,208 | 13th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 304 | 63.1 |
| 1998 | 15,574 | 9th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 244 | 61.8 |
| 1999 | 25,244 | 14th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 304 | 67.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+1448 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5604 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-1999 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.