Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
METTE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100716 · 1 · MAXWELL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:59 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 1887-03-30 — 322nd 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: LILY POND DITCH (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: CRISWELL DITCH (1888-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22888.13603 | 1887-03-30 | 1913-07-14 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 193 |
| 33950.17897 | 1898-12-31 | 1969-07-09 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | A49 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5141, CA2346.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5141 | 1 | 1969-07-09 | S |
CA2346 | 1 | 1913-07-14 | S |
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 303 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 245 AF — 81% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1947 | 242 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 61 | 2.0 |
| 1955 | 44 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 12 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 119 | 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 31 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 757 | 14th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 129 | 3.8 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 386 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 304 | 1.6 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 312 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 126 | 2.7 |
| 2012 | 303 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 147 | 1.6 |
| 2013 | 474 | 11th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 203 | 2.1 |
| 2015 | 1,012 | 15th lowest of 15 · 334% of median | 171 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 570 | 13th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 201 | 2.3 |
| 2017 | 532 | 12th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 182 | 2.5 |
| 2021 | 208 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 146 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 245 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 180 | 0.9 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1956 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1947-2022 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.