Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPANISH PEAKS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1600622 · 1 · CUCHARAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:38 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 1863-05-30 — 2nd most senior of the 1044 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: LA VETA PIPELINE (1863-05-30). Immediately behind: FRANCISCO DAIGRE MILL (1863-05-30).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4898.0 | 1863-05-30 | 1889-06-12 | 0.1334 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 5295.0 | 1864-06-30 | 1889-06-12 | 1.8663 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 8553.0 | 1873-06-01 | 1889-06-12 | 5.92 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3276, CA2196, 86CW0115, 06/12/1889, 05/04/1903.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3276 | 3 | 1889-06-12 | O |
CA2196 | 2 | 1889-06-12 | O |
86CW0115 | 2 | 1889-06-12 | O |
06/12/1889 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | O |
05/04/1903 | 2 | 1889-06-12 | 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 926 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,053 AF — 114% of that, and 10th 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 | 495 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 213 | 2.1 |
| 2012 | 1,249 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 231 | 8.1 |
| 2013 | 521 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 200 | 2.2 |
| 2014 | 1,079 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 208 | 8.2 |
| 2015 | 926 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 203 | 8.2 |
| 2016 | 1,099 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 207 | 8.1 |
| 2017 | 872 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 200 | 8.1 |
| 2018 | 269 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 190 | 2.1 |
| 2019 | 1,604 | 15th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 263 | 8.2 |
| 2020 | 544 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 271 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 1,291 | 14th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 226 | 8.0 |
| 2022 | 144 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 43 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 934 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 145 | 9.3 |
| 2024 | 541 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 142 | 7.8 |
| 2025 | 1,053 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 135 | 8.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 17419 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 71% 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.