Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STUBBS & MILLER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1000567 · 1 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:01 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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.
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 1861-12-31 — 18th most senior of the 2864 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: BEAR CREEK PIPELINE (1861-12-31). Immediately behind: NORTH CATAMOUNT CREEK (1861-12-31).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4383.0 | 1861-12-31 | 1882-03-06 | 2.455 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6 |
| 57341.0 | 2006-12-29 | 2006-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMAUGWLD | |
| 57705.0 | 2007-12-28 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 60530.0 | 2015-09-22 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
11 court cases:
20CW3048, 07CW0121, 06CW0126, 01CW0149, W0117, CA9617, CA37005, CA22955, CA20155, CA0751 and 1 more below.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3048 | 1 | 2007-12-31 | S |
07CW0121 | 2 | 2007-12-31 | S |
06CW0126 | 2 | 2006-12-31 | S |
01CW0149 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
W0117 | 2 | 1919-06-02 | S |
CA9617 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | O |
CA37005 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | O |
CA22955 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | O |
CA20155 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | O |
CA0751 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | O |
06CW0117 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | 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)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 595 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 442 AF — 74% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,368 | 14th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 365 | 4.6 |
| 2012 | 1,430 | 15th lowest of 15 · 240% of median | 366 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 1,324 | 13th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 365 | 6.7 |
| 2014 | 880 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 365 | 5.1 |
| 2015 | 209 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 351 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 366 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 127 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2018 | 671 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 2.7 |
| 2019 | 585 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 2.7 |
| 2020 | 544 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 366 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 595 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 15.9 |
| 2022 | 655 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 400 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 365 | 2.4 |
| 2024 | 685 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 366 | 3.2 |
| 2025 | 442 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 304 | 2.1 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 20073 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 1922-2025 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.