Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CURTIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0801215 · DITCH · WEST PLUM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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 LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
● Fully called out — call at NEVADA DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1865-12-30).
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 1909-03-14 — 1059th most senior of the 21881 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: 8005261 (1908-12-31). Immediately behind: 0806480 (1909-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21622.0 | 1909-03-14 | 1924-06-09 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0807.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0807 | 1 | 1924-06-09 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 61 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 3 AF — 5% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 167 | 13th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | 58 | 1.5 |
| 1992 | 116 | 11th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 42 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 327 | 15th lowest of 15 · 536% of median | 59 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 28 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 15 | 1.0 |
| 1995 | 221 | 14th lowest of 15 · 362% of median | 100 | 1.5 |
| 1996 | 152 | 12th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | 52 | 1.5 |
| 1997 | 54 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 21 | 1.5 |
| 1998 | 57 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 20 | 1.5 |
| 1999 | 61 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 36 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 20 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 63 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 33 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 74 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 21 | 1.9 |
| 2019 | 14 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 5 | 1.9 |
| 2024 | 3 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 2 | 1.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-6 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 1418 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.