Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ST JOHN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1300683 · 1 · PIROTH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:51 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 1886-10-01 — 425th most senior of the 1017 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: DAEMGEN DITCH (1886-07-16). Immediately behind: H H TOMPKINS DITCH NO 3 (1887-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13423.0 | 1886-10-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.58 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 416 |
| 14002.0 | 1888-05-02 | 1896-03-12 | 0.19 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 444 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | 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 46 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 23 AF — 50% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1942 | 46 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 47 | 0.5 |
| 1952 | 39 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 41 | 0.5 |
| 1969 | 36 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 93 | 0.6 |
| 1970 | 43 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 304 | 0.6 |
| 1975 | 62 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 48 | 0.7 |
| 1979 | 72 | 12th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 49 | 0.8 |
| 1980 | 50 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 34 | 0.8 |
| 1983 | 92 | 13th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 60 | 0.8 |
| 1985 | 44 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 31 | 0.8 |
| 1986 | 64 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 43 | 0.8 |
| 1987 | 125 | 14th lowest of 15 · 272% of median | 93 | 0.8 |
| 1988 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 174 | 15th lowest of 15 · 378% of median | 125 | 0.7 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 23 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 24 | 0.5 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 994 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 7% of the irrigation seasons in 1942-2005 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.