Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ST CHARLES FLOOD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1500522 · 1 · SAINT CHARLES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:37 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 1861-09-01 — 15th most senior of the 704 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: LOWER COLO CITY FEEDER 3 (1859-05-01). Immediately behind: PINE DRIVE WATER DIST (1861-12-31).
Decreed rights (16)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4262.0 | 1861-09-01 | 1893-06-26 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 5 |
| 4383.0 | 1861-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 1.42 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 4, 6 |
| 4442.0 | 1862-02-28 | 1893-06-26 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 7 |
| 4929.0 | 1863-06-30 | 1893-06-26 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 11 |
| 5600.0 | 1865-05-01 | 1893-06-26 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 18 |
| 5844.0 | 1865-12-31 | 1895-10-28 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 19.5 |
| 6209.0 | 1866-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
| 6453.0 | 1867-09-01 | 1893-06-26 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 8401.0 | 1872-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 69 |
| 9740.0 | 1876-08-31 | 1893-06-26 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 112 |
| 10957.0 | 1879-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 123 |
| 13879.0 | 1887-12-31 | 1895-10-28 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 177.5 |
| 14610.0 | 1889-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 184 |
| 15706.0 | 1892-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOM | 195 |
| 15883.09862 | 1876-12-31 | 1940-07-22 | 120.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | NI1 |
| 18322.0 | 1900-03-01 | 1929-07-05 | 1000.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 224.5, NI2 |
Legal record & documents
21 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA26461, CA2756-29, 21CW3078, 02CW0065, W4578, CA19936, 00CW0065.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA26461 | 2 | 1940-07-22 | S |
CA2756-29 | 1 | 1929-07-05 | S |
21CW3078 | 1 | 1929-07-05 | S |
02CW0065 | 6 | 1895-10-28 | O |
W4578 | 1 | 1893-06-26 | O |
CA19936 | 9 | 1893-06-26 | O |
00CW0065 | 1 | 1893-06-26 | 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 3,802 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,720 AF — 150% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 3,431 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 365 | 43.4 |
| 2012 | 2,180 | 1st lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 289 | 44.4 |
| 2013 | 3,802 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 140.4 |
| 2014 | 4,543 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 365 | 39.5 |
| 2015 | 3,183 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 365 | 11.8 |
| 2016 | 3,720 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 366 | 13.3 |
| 2017 | 4,961 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 365 | 77.8 |
| 2018 | 3,477 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 365 | 12.8 |
| 2019 | 3,270 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 365 | 44.9 |
| 2020 | 3,280 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 366 | 117.0 |
| 2021 | 4,129 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 365 | 27.7 |
| 2022 | 4,205 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 365 | 15.9 |
| 2023 | 4,902 | 12th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 365 | 77.6 |
| 2024 | 5,609 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 366 | 25.7 |
| 2025 | 5,720 | 15th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 304 | 43.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+158 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 16 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 21727 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 88% of the irrigation seasons in 1910-2025 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.