Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUFFALO CANAL (ARKANSAS)
Structure dossier · WDID 6700608 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1885-01-29 — 23rd 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: LAMAR FARMS WELL NO 2 (1875-11-30). Immediately behind: KELLEY WELL 19743-F (1885-01-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12813.0 | 1885-01-29 | 1895-07-01 | 67.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 5 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
81CW0171, 07/01/1895.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
81CW0171 | 1 | 1895-07-01 | O |
07/01/1895 | 1 | 1895-07-01 | 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 26,730 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 20,328 AF — 76% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 29,369 | 13th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 275 | 94.2 |
| 2012 | 18,627 | 1st lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 306 | 85.3 |
| 2013 | 26,730 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 346 | 102.0 |
| 2014 | 27,052 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 245 | 108.0 |
| 2015 | 25,311 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 275 | 94.4 |
| 2016 | 26,988 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 275 | 92.1 |
| 2017 | 24,626 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 246 | 91.3 |
| 2018 | 28,362 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 246 | 83.8 |
| 2019 | 30,837 | 14th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 275 | 171.8 |
| 2020 | 33,642 | 15th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 275 | 90.0 |
| 2021 | 20,085 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 244 | 83.2 |
| 2022 | 24,140 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 294 | 100.0 |
| 2023 | 23,691 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 325 | 84.5 |
| 2024 | 28,668 | 12th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 248 | 91.6 |
| 2025 | 20,328 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 227 | 69.7 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 23788 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1938-2025 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.