Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
0600530
Structure dossier · WDID 0600530 · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:52 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (5cd37f7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at RURAL DITCH (BOULDER CREEK, priority 1862-05-09).
● Fully called out — call at JONES DONNELLY DITCH (SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, priority 1860-04-30).
● Fully called out — call at HOWARD DITCH (SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, priority 1860-04-01).
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 1862-06-01 — 56th 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: FARMERS DITCH (1862-06-01). Immediately behind: MCCARTY DITCH (1862-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4535.0 | 1862-06-01 | 1882-06-02 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W7570, CA1356, 21CW3216.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W7570 | 2 | 1882-06-02 | O |
CA1356 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
21CW3216 | 1 | 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 657 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1974, came in at 93 AF — 14% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960 | 1,025 | 15th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 131 | 5.0 |
| 1961 | 643 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 92 | 5.0 |
| 1962 | 843 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 154 | 5.0 |
| 1963 | 817 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 161 | 5.0 |
| 1964 | 629 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 87 | 6.0 |
| 1965 | 672 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 139 | 4.0 |
| 1966 | 623 | 4th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 101 | 5.0 |
| 1967 | 657 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 6.0 |
| 1968 | 629 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 115 | 5.0 |
| 1969 | 613 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 113 | 4.0 |
| 1970 | 672 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 131 | 6.0 |
| 1971 | 466 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 101 | 4.0 |
| 1972 | 811 | 12th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 125 | 6.0 |
| 1973 | 780 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 105 | 8.0 |
| 1974 | 93 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
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 | partial | missing name, structure type, water source |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2709 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-1974 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.