Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FINLEY RANCH PMP PLANT
Structure dossier · WDID 7201080 · 8 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:08 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1967-02-28 — 919th most senior of the 2166 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: LIME KILN DRAW SPRING (1963-12-31). Immediately behind: DOWIS PIPELINE (1970-07-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43829.42792 | 1967-02-28 | 1970-12-31 | 12.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0746-74, W0048, 86CW0104.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0746-74 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
W0048 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
86CW0104 | 3 | 1970-12-31 | 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 458 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1997, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976 | 297 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 26 | 6.5 |
| 1977 | 961 | 11th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 79 | 6.5 |
| 1978 | 258 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 21 | 6.5 |
| 1982 | 294 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 14 | 11.5 |
| 1983 | 278 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 18 | 12.0 |
| 1984 | 1,231 | 13th lowest of 15 · 269% of median | 68 | 11.3 |
| 1985 | 1,376 | 14th lowest of 15 · 300% of median | 64 | 12.4 |
| 1990 | 1,887 | 15th lowest of 15 · 412% of median | 135 | 10.0 |
| 1991 | 1,182 | 12th lowest of 15 · 258% of median | 94 | 7.0 |
| 1992 | 832 | 10th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 72 | 6.6 |
| 1993 | 458 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 34 | 7.0 |
| 1994 | 694 | 9th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 66 | 7.2 |
| 1995 | 406 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 22 | 12.2 |
| 1996 | 372 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 38 | 12.0 |
| 1997 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1054 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-1997 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.