Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DURAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1600626 · 1 · CUCHARAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:06 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 1871-06-13 — 71st 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: DENTON DITCH (1871-06-01). Immediately behind: DAVID HART DITCH (1871-06-15).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7834.0 | 1871-06-13 | 1889-06-12 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 21 |
| 13734.0 | 1887-08-08 | 1894-02-16 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRDOM | 68 |
| 14408.0709 | 1869-05-30 | 1898-02-23 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 14408.07834 | 1871-06-13 | 1898-02-23 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 32 |
| 14408.13666 | 1887-06-01 | 1898-02-23 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 118 |
| 61358.0 | 2017-12-28 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | ALL |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
17CW3075, 11/27/1928, 02/23/1898, CA0582, 06/12/1889.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3075 | 2 | 2017-12-31 | S |
11/27/1928 | 1 | 1898-02-23 | S |
02/23/1898 | 2 | 1898-02-23 | S |
CA0582 | 1 | 1894-02-16 | O |
06/12/1889 | 1 | 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 914 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 167 AF — 18% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 390 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 312 | 8.0 |
| 2012 | 2,391 | 14th lowest of 15 · 262% of median | 209 | 38.4 |
| 2013 | 914 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 346 | 30.1 |
| 2014 | 1,556 | 11th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 282 | 23.1 |
| 2015 | 1,409 | 10th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 191 | 26.0 |
| 2016 | 1,799 | 12th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 225 | 20.3 |
| 2017 | 730 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 130 | 8.8 |
| 2018 | 490 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 108 | 7.5 |
| 2019 | 1,878 | 13th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 184 | 16.4 |
| 2020 | 435 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 124 | 9.5 |
| 2021 | 1,076 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 123 | 16.8 |
| 2022 | 126 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 52 | 9.0 |
| 2023 | 573 | 6th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 60 | 8.8 |
| 2024 | 2,790 | 15th lowest of 15 · 305% of median | 326 | 17.2 |
| 2025 | 167 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 60 | 2.9 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10550 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2025 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.