Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MOUNTAIN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100706 · 1 · THREE ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:10 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 1885-10-01 — 216th 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: EGGLESTON DITCH (1885-04-20). Immediately behind: LINK & IRVING IRRIGATING (1885-12-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13058.0 | 1885-10-01 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRFISFIRWLD | 146 |
| 13751.0 | 1887-08-25 | 1890-06-19 | 1.44 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRFISFIRWLD | 165 |
| 61726.4529 | 1973-12-31 | 2019-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.5 | C | IRRFISFIRWLD |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
19CW3086, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
19CW3086 | 6 | 2019-12-31 | O, S |
CA1127 | 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 177 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 70 AF — 40% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1973 | 404 | 13th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 112 | 5.5 |
| 1974 | 600 | 15th lowest of 15 · 339% of median | 153 | 2.0 |
| 1976 | 28 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 15 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 289 | 12th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 139 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 214 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 186 | 1.2 |
| 2001 | 186 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 152 | 0.9 |
| 2002 | 2 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 17 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 177 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 95 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 101 | 7th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 51 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 407 | 14th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 84 | 4.0 |
| 2017 | 67 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 93 | 0.4 |
| 2018 | 62 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 153 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 246 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 116 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 67 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 113 | 0.3 |
| 2021 | 70 | 6th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 122 | 0.3 |
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 | 1633 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 7% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2021 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.