Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPRING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100776 · 1 · MORRIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1882-01-31 — 176th 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: MCFADDEN DITCH (1882-01-09). Immediately behind: HELENA DITCH (1882-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11719.0 | 1882-01-31 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
| 13157.0 | 1886-01-08 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 148 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
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 227 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 207 AF — 91% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 642 | 12th lowest of 15 · 283% of median | 239 | 1.8 |
| 2007 | 722 | 15th lowest of 15 · 318% of median | 252 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 596 | 11th lowest of 15 · 263% of median | 236 | 1.7 |
| 2009 | 659 | 13th lowest of 15 · 290% of median | 235 | 1.8 |
| 2010 | 669 | 14th lowest of 15 · 295% of median | 222 | 1.9 |
| 2011 | 351 | 9th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 252 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 222 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 225 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 221 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 228 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 407 | 10th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 213 | 1.8 |
| 2015 | 183 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 231 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 4 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 29 | 0.2 |
| 2017 | 96 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 228 | 0.8 |
| 2018 | 125 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 300 | 0.3 |
| 2019 | 227 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 212 | 0.6 |
| 2020 | 207 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 246 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-43 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 5059 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2020 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.