Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JACKSON CR HIGHLINE D
Structure dossier · WDID 0801245 · DITCH · JACKSON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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
● Junior rights called out — call at LITTLETON BOAT CHUTE NO 10 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1994-12-02).
● 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 1902-11-30 — 984th 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: 0803517 (1894-11-15). Immediately behind: 2305494 (1904-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19866.19326 | 1902-11-30 | 1905-12-19 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | |
| 53691.53536 | 1996-07-29 | 1997-12-31 | 0.0 | 25.0 | C | IRRRECFISAUGWLD | |
| 60630.0 | 2015-12-31 | 2015-12-31 | 0.0 | 25.0 | C | IRRRECAUGRCH |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
15CW3181, 97CW0193, 97CW0076, 12/19/1905, 00CW0018.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
15CW3181 | 1 | 2015-12-31 | S |
97CW0193 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
97CW0076 | 3 | 1905-12-19 | S |
12/19/1905 | 1 | 1905-12-19 | S |
00CW0018 | 2 | 1905-12-19 | 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 352 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 377 AF — 107% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 61 | 2.5 |
| 1988 | 21 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 37 | 0.3 |
| 1989 | 32 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 9 | 2.0 |
| 1990 | 227 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 77 | 2.0 |
| 1991 | 292 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 108 | 2.5 |
| 1992 | 437 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 64 | 3.5 |
| 1993 | 352 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 86 | 4.0 |
| 1994 | 1,912 | 15th lowest of 15 · 543% of median | 241 | 4.0 |
| 1995 | 1,359 | 14th lowest of 15 · 386% of median | 225 | 4.0 |
| 1996 | 641 | 13th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 100 | 4.0 |
| 1997 | 621 | 12th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 95 | 4.0 |
| 1998 | 436 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 56 | 4.0 |
| 2007 | 228 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 70 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.1 |
| 2009 | 377 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 86 | 4.0 |
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 | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2072 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2009 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.