Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VIPOND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1301036 · 1 · TEXAS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:17 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 1877-04-30 — 245th 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: SPRUCE CREEK RESERVOIR 2 (1877-04-01). Immediately behind: AMBROSE DITCH NO 11 (1877-05-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9982.0 | 1877-04-30 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 55517.48789 | 1983-07-31 | 2002-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
02CW0172, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0172 | 1 | 2002-12-31 | S |
02/03/1894 | 2 | 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 335 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 159 AF — 48% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 329 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 169 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 367 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 202 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 413 | 14th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 211 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 395 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 200 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 373 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 189 | 1.0 |
| 2015 | 419 | 15th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 212 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 397 | 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 201 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 387 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 196 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 91 | 1st lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 60 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 244 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 125 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 178 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 163 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 325 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 166 | 1.0 |
| 2022 | 335 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 171 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 246 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 134 | 1.0 |
| 2024 | 159 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 154 | 1.0 |
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 | 5050 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1924-2024 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.