Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CONEHAY NEW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0801353 · DITCH · CHERRY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:09 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 1872-12-30 — 396th 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: 0801280 (1872-07-03). Immediately behind: 0801414 (1872-12-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8400.0 | 1872-12-30 | 1883-12-10 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 15572.0 | 1892-08-19 | 1892-11-28 | 0.95 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
99CW0229, 06CW0118.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0229 | 1 | 1892-11-28 | S |
06CW0118 | 2 | 1883-12-10 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 43 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 11 AF — 26% of that, and 4th lowest of the 12 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 40 | 6th lowest of 12 · 93% of median | 34 | 1.2 |
| 2010 | 89 | 11th lowest of 12 · 207% of median | 133 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 58 | 10th lowest of 12 · 135% of median | 54 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 4 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 9% of median | 4 | 1.1 |
| 2016 | 46 | 7th lowest of 12 · 107% of median | 42 | 1.3 |
| 2017 | 51 | 9th lowest of 12 · 119% of median | 96 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 47 | 8th lowest of 12 · 109% of median | 47 | 1.3 |
| 2019 | 10 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 23% of median | 20 | 0.7 |
| 2020 | 38 | 5th lowest of 12 · 88% of median | 63 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | 42 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 233 | 12th lowest of 12 · 542% of median | 241 | 1.1 |
| 2023 | 11 | 4th lowest of 12 · 26% of median | 304 | 1.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1080 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 2009-2023 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.