Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DENTON & MCAULIFFE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1600776 · 1 · WAHATOYA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1873-06-20 — 83rd 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: PATTERSON DITCH (1873-04-20). Immediately behind: JOHN HARRIS DITCH NO 1 (1874-04-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8572.0 | 1873-06-20 | 1889-06-12 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 11412.0 | 1881-03-30 | 1889-06-12 | 0.74 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 55 |
| 11617.0 | 1881-10-21 | 1889-06-12 | 0.26 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 58 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
06/12/1889.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06/12/1889 | 3 | 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 253 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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 | 351 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 152 | 3.8 |
| 2011 | 68 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 99 | 1.4 |
| 2012 | 253 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 157 | 3.5 |
| 2013 | 92 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 84 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 389 | 15th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 140 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 337 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 134 | 3.8 |
| 2016 | 386 | 14th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 127 | 4.4 |
| 2017 | 191 | 7th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 72 | 4.4 |
| 2018 | 95 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 86 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 303 | 9th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 94 | 4.1 |
| 2020 | 167 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 113 | 1.6 |
| 2021 | 353 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 104 | 3.8 |
| 2022 | 344 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 146 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 | 2451 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 2003-2024 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.