Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WOLF & NEERLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100651 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:14 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 1877-04-01 — 126th 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: MCPHERSON & BURNETT (1876-11-30). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS DITCH (1877-04-30).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9953.0 | 1877-04-01 | 1890-06-19 | 8.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 11777.0 | 1882-03-30 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 12784.0 | 1884-12-31 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 139 |
| 12844.0 | 1885-03-01 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 141 |
| 13818.0 | 1887-10-31 | 1903-01-20 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 164A |
| 24127.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1916-07-10 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2523, CA5288, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2523 | 1 | 1916-07-10 | S |
CA5288 | 1 | 1903-01-20 | O |
CA1127 | 4 | 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 2,561 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 554 AF — 22% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2,640 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 316 | 18.4 |
| 2010 | 3,104 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 161 | 19.4 |
| 2011 | 3,398 | 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 161 | 21.4 |
| 2012 | 711 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 68 | 11.4 |
| 2013 | 1,787 | 7th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 137 | 11.6 |
| 2014 | 4,110 | 14th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 179 | 21.4 |
| 2015 | 4,181 | 15th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 156 | 20.7 |
| 2016 | 1,518 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 111 | 20.8 |
| 2017 | 3,328 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 152 | 21.4 |
| 2018 | 696 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 43 | 9.5 |
| 2019 | 3,017 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 154 | 20.3 |
| 2020 | 1,243 | 5th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 74 | 11.4 |
| 2021 | 2,561 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 124 | 17.3 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 554 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 60 | 8.5 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9517 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2023 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.