Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHURCH DITCH(UPPER)
Structure dossier · WDID 0600606 · DITCH · COAL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
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).
● Junior rights called out — call at LOWER LATHAM DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1885-11-20).
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 1870-09-20 — 88th 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: LEGGETT DITCH (1868-05-01). Immediately behind: GOOSE HAVEN RESERVOIR COMPLEX (1872-04-15).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7568.0 | 1870-09-20 | 1882-06-02 | 18.11 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 11841.07445 | 1870-05-20 | 1900-12-31 | 18.11 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 15280.0 | 1891-11-01 | 1900-12-31 | 18.11 | 0.0 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3944, CA1331.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3944 | 2 | 1900-12-31 | S |
CA1331 | 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 109 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 20 AF — 18% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 272 | 12th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 27 | 15.0 |
| 1987 | 876 | 15th lowest of 15 · 804% of median | 58 | 19.0 |
| 1988 | 463 | 14th lowest of 15 · 425% of median | 46 | 16.5 |
| 1990 | 10 | 1st lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 5 | 1.7 |
| 1991 | 114 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 22 | 3.5 |
| 1994 | 46 | 5th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 12 | 2.9 |
| 1995 | 271 | 11th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | 31 | 8.7 |
| 2004 | 147 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 23 | 7.0 |
| 2005 | 342 | 13th lowest of 15 · 314% of median | 50 | 5.5 |
| 2007 | 38 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 10 | 3.0 |
| 2009 | 32 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 10 | 2.4 |
| 2010 | 109 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 15 | 5.7 |
| 2019 | 48 | 6th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 18 | 2.4 |
| 2020 | 94 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 26 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 20 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 12 | 2.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 975 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 6% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2023 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.