← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

TRINCHERA DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 1900726 · 1 · TRINCHERA CREEK · 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 1866-02-2836th 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: JUAN VASQUEZ DITCH (1866-02-28). Immediately behind: HILL RANCH AUG PLAN (1866-03-01).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
5903.01866-02-281903-08-10 16.760.0 CIRR 23

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 300 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 300 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2010 1,292 15th lowest of 15 · 431% of median 151 15.6
2011 154 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median 90 2.1
2012 294 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median 109 3.7
2013 175 4th lowest of 15 · 58% of median 71 2.0
2014 237 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median 98 2.4
2015 339 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median 106 3.4
2016 384 12th lowest of 15 · 128% of median 101 5.2
2017 334 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median 118 3.1
2018 169 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median 151 1.4
2019 523 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median 112 3.8
2020 56 1st lowest of 15 · 19% of median 64 0.7
2021 490 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median 194 4.0
2022 265 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median 191 1.9
2023 370 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median 117 2.6
2024 300 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 131 2.3

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 11587 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 76% of the irrigation seasons in 1953-2024 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.