Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMITY CANAL (MAY VALLEY)
Structure dossier · WDID 6700520 · 1 · MARKHAM ARROYO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:35 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 1908-05-26 — 125th most senior of the 2116 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: SAYLER & NOWELLS DITCH (1908-05-26). Immediately behind: CHRONISTER WELL NO 3 (1909-12-31).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21857.2133 | 1908-05-26 | 1918-10-14 | 3.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1918-18 |
| 21857.21462 | 1908-10-05 | 1918-10-14 | 500.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMINDFIRDOMAUGPWRRCH | 1918-21 |
| 57555.0 | 2007-07-31 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 500.0 | C | STOIRRCOMINDFIRDOMAUGPWRRCH |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
07CW0074, 11CW0014, 10/14/1918.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
07CW0074 | 3 | 2007-12-31 | S |
11CW0014 | 1 | 1918-10-14 | S |
10/14/1918 | 1 | 1918-10-14 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 717 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 793 AF — 111% of that, and 8th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 1971 | 585 | 4th lowest of 13 · 82% of median | 62 | 20.0 |
| 2015 | 717 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 168 | 21.1 |
| 2016 | 1,437 | 10th lowest of 13 · 200% of median | 239 | 20.4 |
| 2017 | 2,417 | 13th lowest of 13 · 337% of median | 202 | 15.2 |
| 2018 | 1,915 | 11th lowest of 13 · 267% of median | 254 | 53.2 |
| 2019 | 2,361 | 12th lowest of 13 · 329% of median | 365 | 15.1 |
| 2020 | 984 | 9th lowest of 13 · 137% of median | 366 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 620 | 5th lowest of 13 · 86% of median | 267 | 6.1 |
| 2022 | 146 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 20% of median | 106 | 24.4 |
| 2023 | 693 | 6th lowest of 13 · 97% of median | 225 | 17.7 |
| 2024 | 405 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 56% of median | 306 | 8.4 |
| 2025 | 793 | 8th lowest of 13 · 111% of median | 303 | 29.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2867 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.