Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH SIDE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0700669 · DITCH · CLEAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:12 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (4ab2507) — 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
● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (23 active call(s) checked).
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: only 2 analog year(s) have both flow and a complete administration record; 4 needed.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1860-05-16 — 25th most senior of the 1815 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: LEE STEWART ESKINS DITCH (1860-05-16). Immediately behind: 0700727 (1860-05-16).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 53.6, it is 83rd of 107 down the reach. Immediately upstream: PROSPECT PARK LAKE. Immediately downstream: OUELETTE DITCH.
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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3789.0 | 1860-05-16 | 1884-10-04 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA46238, 10/04/1884.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA46238 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | O |
10/04/1884 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | 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)
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1972 | — | no recorded volume | 1,736 | 0 | — |
| 1973 | — | no recorded volume | 1,894 | 0 | — |
| 1974 | — | no recorded volume | 2,511 | 0 | — |
| 1975 | — | no recorded volume | 2,233 | 0 | — |
| 1976 | — | no recorded volume | 2,161 | 0 | — |
| 1977 | — | no recorded volume | 304 | 0 | — |
| 1978 | — | no recorded volume | 157 | 0 | — |
| 1979 | — | no recorded volume | 179 | 0 | — |
| 1980 | — | no recorded volume | 153 | 0 | — |
| 1981 | — | no recorded volume | 72 | 0 | — |
| 2005 | — | no recorded volume | 42 | 0 | — |
| 2006 | — | no recorded volume | 190 | 0 | — |
| 2008 | — | no recorded volume | 105 | 0 | — |
| 2009 | — | no recorded volume | 516 | 0 | — |
| 2010 | — | no recorded volume | 442 | 0 | — |
Trends for this structure
Its reference gage, LEE AND BAUGH DITCH TAIL: 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | fragment | 61 measured day(s) on file (under 180 -- a season, not a history) |
| record continuity | unknown | record too short to assess continuity (needs 2+ years of span and 180+ 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.