Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BEST DITCH HEADGATE 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1700605 · 1 · MUSTANG CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:26 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 1904-04-01 — 84th most senior of the 1909 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: DYE RESERVOIR (1903-10-10). Immediately behind: BEST RESERVOIR (1904-04-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20186.19814 | 1904-04-01 | 1927-02-03 | 50.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R21 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
21CW3078, 02/03/1927.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
21CW3078 | 1 | 1927-02-03 | S |
02/03/1927 | 1 | 1927-02-03 | S |
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 232 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2013, came in at 397 AF — 171% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1971 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 5 | 10.0 |
| 1972 | 50 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 15 | 10.0 |
| 1975 | 60 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 15 | 15.0 |
| 1985 | 377 | 9th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 2 | 190.0 |
| 1986 | 575 | 11th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 4 | 200.0 |
| 1991 | 1,087 | 14th lowest of 15 · 468% of median | 6 | 270.0 |
| 1995 | 896 | 13th lowest of 15 · 386% of median | 6 | 230.0 |
| 1997 | 1,240 | 15th lowest of 15 · 534% of median | 4 | 325.0 |
| 2004 | 74 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 2 | 37.5 |
| 2005 | 232 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 4 | 90.0 |
| 2006 | 597 | 12th lowest of 15 · 257% of median | 6 | 121.0 |
| 2007 | 95 | 6th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 2 | 47.9 |
| 2008 | 67 | 4th lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 2 | 33.8 |
| 2009 | 121 | 7th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 4 | 32.0 |
| 2013 | 397 | 10th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 8 | 50.0 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | fragment | 94 measured day(s) on file (under 180 -- a season, not a history) |
| record continuity | unknown | record too short to assess continuity (needs 2+ years of span and 180+ 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.