Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JUAN VASQUEZ DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1900700 · 1 · SAN FRANCISCO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 1866-02-28 — 35th most senior of the 735 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: BURNS & DUNCAN DITCH (1866-01-01). Immediately behind: TRINCHERA DITCH (1866-02-28).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5903.0 | 1866-02-28 | 1903-08-10 | 4.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 5903.0 | 1866-02-28 | 1891-05-19 | 6.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
08/10/1903, 02/29/1904, 01/09/1913, 05/09/1891.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08/10/1903 | 1 | 1903-08-10 | O |
02/29/1904 | 2 | 1903-08-10 | O |
01/09/1913 | 2 | 1903-08-10 | O |
05/09/1891 | 1 | 1891-05-19 | 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 283 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 276 AF — 98% of that, and 7th 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 | 488 | 14th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 181 | 3.9 |
| 2011 | 243 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 147 | 1.4 |
| 2012 | 283 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 152 | 1.8 |
| 2013 | 215 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 154 | 1.6 |
| 2014 | 224 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 118 | 1.7 |
| 2015 | 370 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 166 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 384 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 155 | 3.4 |
| 2017 | 313 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 134 | 3.3 |
| 2018 | 207 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 242 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 443 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 123 | 2.5 |
| 2020 | 89 | 1st lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 110 | 0.9 |
| 2021 | 504 | 15th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 205 | 2.3 |
| 2022 | 215 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 161 | 1.7 |
| 2023 | 330 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 120 | 2.6 |
| 2024 | 276 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 156 | 2.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14679 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 73% of the irrigation seasons in 1931-2024 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.