Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

MANNING DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 6100514 · 1 · LA SAL CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 02:17 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 1909-04-01 — 36th most senior of the 166 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: LAMMERT DITCH & ENLG (1909-04-01). Immediately behind: SPRING CREEK DITCH (1909-04-01).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
27777.21641909-04-011942-09-25 0.60.0 CIRR 43

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 129 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 54 AF — 42% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2010 121 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median 148 0.5
2011 129 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 167 0.6
2012 130 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median 176 0.5
2013 178 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median 199 0.5
2014 101 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median 164 0.3
2015 121 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median 205 0.3
2016 143 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median 207 0.3
2017 172 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median 191 0.5
2018 90 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median 80 0.6
2019 123 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median 106 0.6
2020 89 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median 80 0.6
2021 162 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median 142 0.6
2022 231 15th lowest of 15 · 179% of median 199 0.6
2023 149 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median 144 0.6
2024 54 1st lowest of 15 · 42% of median 57 0.6

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (8/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 7113 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1967-2024 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.