Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THOMPSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100645 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 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 1864-12-19 — 22nd most senior of the 1489 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: BUENA VISTA INF GALLERY (1864-11-30). Immediately behind: RAINBOW LAKE (M COTTONWD CRK) (1864-12-19).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5467.0 | 1864-12-19 | 1890-06-19 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMAUG | 3 |
| 5995.0 | 1866-05-31 | 1890-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W4032, W3969, CA5719, CA5512, CA1127, 94CW0005.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W4032 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
W3969 | 3 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA5719 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA5512 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA1127 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
94CW0005 | 2 | 1890-06-19 | 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 427 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 5 AF — 1% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 634 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 192 | 2.7 |
| 2008 | 586 | 10th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 226 | 2.7 |
| 2009 | 663 | 14th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 306 | 2.7 |
| 2010 | 657 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 179 | 2.7 |
| 2011 | 589 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 163 | 2.9 |
| 2012 | 825 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 227 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 552 | 9th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 163 | 2.9 |
| 2014 | 427 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 221 | 2.7 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 43 | 7th lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 214 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 5 | 6th lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 16 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-49 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 8864 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1910-2023 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.