Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WATSON DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1200520 · 1 · FOURMILE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:09 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 1872-05-01 — 127th most senior of the 1967 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: DRURY DITCH (1872-04-30). Immediately behind: HOLE IN THE GROUND DITCH (1872-05-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8157.0 | 1872-05-01 | 1894-02-03 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 90 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
85CW0078, 18CW3044, 14CW3005, 13CW3048, 03CW0099, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
85CW0078 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
18CW3044 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
14CW3005 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
13CW3048 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
03CW0099 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
02/03/1894 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | 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 50 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 160 AF — 320% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 254 | 15th lowest of 15 · 508% of median | 169 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 50 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 21 | 4th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 78 | 0.1 |
| 2001 | 37 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 134 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 26 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 95 | 0.1 |
| 2004 | 6 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 24 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 198 | 13th lowest of 15 · 396% of median | 93 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 46 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 140 | 10th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | 53 | 1.6 |
| 2021 | 69 | 9th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 31 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 29 | 6th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 11 | 1.8 |
| 2023 | 149 | 11th lowest of 15 · 298% of median | 60 | 1.6 |
| 2024 | 221 | 14th lowest of 15 · 442% of median | 88 | 1.6 |
| 2025 | 160 | 12th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 73 | 1.6 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3676 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2025 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.