Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DELEHANT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600523 · DITCH · BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1865-05-01 — 84th most senior of the 1867 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: 0600903 (1865-04-01). Immediately behind: HIGHLAND SOUTH SIDE DITCH (1865-06-01).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 27.9, it is 62nd of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: HOUCK 2 DITCH. Immediately downstream: KEN-REG RES.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5600.0 | 1865-05-01 | 1882-06-02 | 99.9 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRRECFISRCHWLD | |
| 5600.0 | 1865-05-01 | 1882-06-02 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISRCHWLD |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
88CW0219, CA1287, 84CW0412, 06CW0065.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0219 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA1287 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
84CW0412 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
06CW0065 | 2 | 1882-06-02 | 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 183 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 61 AF — 33% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 151 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 23 | 5.0 |
| 2000 | 276 | 10th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 49 | 3.0 |
| 2001 | 414 | 14th lowest of 15 · 226% of median | 58 | 5.0 |
| 2003 | 111 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 15 | 4.0 |
| 2004 | 131 | 5th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 24 | 4.0 |
| 2005 | 347 | 13th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 50 | 4.0 |
| 2006 | 333 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 68 | 4.0 |
| 2007 | 155 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 27 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 338 | 12th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 62 | 3.0 |
| 2009 | 183 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 47 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 125 | 4th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 14 | 8.0 |
| 2013 | 83 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 21 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 247 | 9th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 38 | 7.5 |
| 2017 | 470 | 15th lowest of 15 · 257% of median | 58 | 12.0 |
| 2018 | 61 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 5 | 10.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, IDAHO CREEK DIVERSION FROM BOULDER CREEK: no clear flow trend.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | stale | 3252 measured days, but newest is 2979 day(s) before the data's end (target 450) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2018 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.