Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THREE LAKES INLET DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700583 · 1 · NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:15 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1966-10-05 — 112th most senior of the 187 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: NEW BOND HOUSE D(ASPEN) (1966-10-05). Immediately behind: UPPER CAMP DITCH (1966-10-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42646.0 | 1966-10-05 | 1968-12-19 | 15.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDRECFISFIRDOMSTK | 68-253 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0165, CA0308-D, 83CW0007.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0165 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
83CW0007 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | 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 296 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,096 AF — 708% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 572 | 11th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 122 | 8.0 |
| 2010 | 123 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 61 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 308 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 129 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 296 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 154 | 6.5 |
| 2013 | 202 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 98 | 4.5 |
| 2014 | 167 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 126 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 275 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 172 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 214 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 110 | 2.4 |
| 2017 | 564 | 10th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 135 | 3.5 |
| 2018 | 1,250 | 13th lowest of 15 · 422% of median | 184 | 9.5 |
| 2019 | 907 | 12th lowest of 15 · 306% of median | 162 | 4.0 |
| 2020 | 64 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 29 | 3.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 3,741 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1264% of median | 178 | 14.8 |
| 2025 | 2,096 | 14th lowest of 15 · 708% of median | 164 | 14.9 |
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 | 9847 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 80% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2025 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.