Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LILYLANDS CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 6000670 · 1 · NATURITA 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 1885-10-02 — 13th 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: NUCLA POWER PLANT DITCH (1885-10-01). Immediately behind: CORNET CREEK WATER RIGHT (1886-06-15).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13059.0 | 1885-10-02 | 1897-06-11 | 0.26 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 8 |
| 13423.0 | 1886-10-01 | 1897-06-11 | 0.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 11 |
| 13704.0 | 1887-07-09 | 1897-06-11 | 1.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14, 15 |
| 14154.0 | 1888-10-01 | 1897-06-11 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 20 |
| 18478.0 | 1900-08-04 | 1911-06-03 | 5.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 98 |
| 24379.23212 | 1913-07-21 | 1920-09-16 | 39.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 140 |
| 30604.28053 | 1913-07-22 | 1939-11-01 | 50.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 285 |
| 30604.29766 | 1931-07-01 | 1939-11-01 | 24.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 319, 319C |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4641, CA2533, CA1551.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4641 | 4 | 1939-11-01 | S |
CA2533 | 1 | 1920-09-16 | S |
CA1551 | 6 | 1911-06-03 | O, 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 2,240 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,011 AF — 45% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,499 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 179 | 24.0 |
| 2011 | 3,020 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 195 | 28.0 |
| 2012 | 1,116 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 206 | 8.0 |
| 2013 | 1,406 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 204 | 12.0 |
| 2014 | 2,240 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 191 | 18.0 |
| 2015 | 3,790 | 12th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 199 | 26.2 |
| 2016 | 4,915 | 14th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 214 | 39.0 |
| 2017 | 4,121 | 13th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 210 | 33.0 |
| 2018 | 447 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 65 | 7.0 |
| 2019 | 3,116 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 151 | 41.2 |
| 2020 | 516 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 199 | 10.4 |
| 2021 | 1,654 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 365 | 11.2 |
| 2022 | 1,417 | 6th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 341 | 17.5 |
| 2023 | 7,340 | 15th lowest of 15 · 328% of median | 273 | 25.0 |
| 2024 | 1,011 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 28 | 24.0 |
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 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8142 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 76% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.