Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DIXON CANON RES
Structure dossier · WDID 0303731 · 3 · DIXON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:09 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 1885-10-08 — 191st most senior of the 2961 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: WOODS DITCH NO 3 (1885-04-03). Immediately behind: PURCELL DITCH ALT PT 2 (1885-10-11).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13065.0 | 1885-10-08 | 1904-12-09 | 448.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | |
| 20695.0 | 1906-08-30 | 1922-04-22 | 21.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2031, CA1591.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2031 | 1 | 1922-04-22 | S |
CA1591 | 1 | 1904-12-09 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 290 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 300 AF — 104% of that, and 8th lowest of the 14 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 146 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 50% of median | — | 18 | 8.2 |
| 1998 | 279 | 7th lowest of 14 · 96% of median | 503 | 53 | 8.6 |
| 1999 | 95 | 1st lowest of 14 · 33% of median | 16 | 8 | 8.2 |
| 2000 | 315 | 9th lowest of 14 · 109% of median | 310 | 95 | 2.8 |
| 2001 | 240 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 83% of median | 357 | 63 | 3.2 |
| 2002 | 504 | 14th lowest of 14 · 174% of median | 345 | 124 | 4.0 |
| 2003 | 498 | 13th lowest of 14 · 172% of median | 407 | 135 | 2.4 |
| 2004 | 275 | 6th lowest of 14 · 95% of median | 263 | 62 | 2.7 |
| 2005 | 267 | 5th lowest of 14 · 92% of median | 239 | 93 | 2.2 |
| 2006 | 416 | 12th lowest of 14 · 144% of median | 467 | 126 | 2.3 |
| 2007 | 366 | 10th lowest of 14 · 126% of median | 336 | 154 | 2.6 |
| 2008 | 406 | 11th lowest of 14 · 140% of median | 375 | 155 | 2.2 |
| 2009 | 263 | 4th lowest of 14 · 91% of median | 255 | 124 | 2.1 |
| 2010 | 300 | 8th lowest of 14 · 104% of median | 335 | 185 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1395 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 48% of the irrigation seasons in 1997-2010 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.