Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
T N WILLIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600622 · DITCH · COAL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:38 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).
● Fully 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 1893-06-01 — 215th 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: 0600731 (1893-05-01). Immediately behind: 0600556 (1894-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20890.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1926-06-21 | 4.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA6672.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6672 | 1 | 1926-06-21 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 218 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 42 AF — 19% of that, and 1st lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | 812 | 11th lowest of 13 · 372% of median | 93 | 4.5 |
| 1985 | 218 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 61 | 3.0 |
| 1986 | 571 | 9th lowest of 13 · 262% of median | 74 | 4.0 |
| 1988 | 79 | 4th lowest of 13 · 36% of median | 21 | 3.0 |
| 1989 | 960 | 12th lowest of 13 · 440% of median | 124 | 4.0 |
| 1990 | 155 | 6th lowest of 13 · 71% of median | 28 | 3.0 |
| 1991 | 289 | 8th lowest of 13 · 133% of median | 59 | 3.0 |
| 1992 | 50 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 23% of median | 11 | 2.5 |
| 1993 | 111 | 5th lowest of 13 · 51% of median | 31 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 55 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 25% of median | 19 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 601 | 10th lowest of 13 · 276% of median | 168 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 1,077 | 13th lowest of 13 · 494% of median | 183 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 42 | 1st lowest of 13 · 19% of median | 22 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 894 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 11% of the irrigation seasons in 1984-2021 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.