Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

WM KNUTH DITCH NO 5

Structure dossier · WDID 1300684 · 1 · PIROTH CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:21 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 1887-05-09 — 429th 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: J L SCHWAB DITCH 4 COTTW (1887-05-05). Immediately behind: CAUGHMAN DITCH NO 2 (1887-05-10).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
13643.01887-05-091896-03-12 0.660.0 CIRR 420

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, 2024, came in at 18 AF — 39% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1952 42 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 92 0.7
1983 86 12th lowest of 15 · 187% of median 65 0.7
1985 90 14th lowest of 15 · 196% of median 70 0.7
1986 55 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median 43 0.7
1987 73 11th lowest of 15 · 159% of median 58 0.7
1988 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
1993 89 13th lowest of 15 · 194% of median 69 0.7
1995 164 15th lowest of 15 · 356% of median 125 0.7
1996 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
1998 39 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median 12 1.8
2005 14 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median 12 0.7
2007 48 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median 39 0.7
2021 46 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 36 0.7
2023 39 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median 33 0.7
2024 18 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median 17 0.7

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 864 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 5% of the irrigation seasons in 1938-2024 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.