Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SCHULTZ DITTRICH D
Structure dossier · WDID 2500647 · 1 · SAN LUIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:41 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 1867-05-01 — 5th most senior of the 847 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: SAN LUIS CO D (1867-05-01). Immediately behind: STEEL D 2 (1867-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6330.0 | 1867-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
| 8492.0 | 1873-04-01 | 1890-03-28 | 5.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 11154.0 | 1880-07-15 | 1890-03-28 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 73 |
| 58439.0633 | 1867-05-01 | 1890-03-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STKOTH | |
| 58439.08492 | 1873-04-01 | 1890-03-28 | 4.4 | 0.0 | C | STKOTH | |
| 58439.11154 | 1880-07-15 | 1890-03-28 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | STKOTH |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA0592, CA0518, CA0472, 10CW0035, 03/28/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0592 | 1 | 1890-03-28 | O |
CA0518 | 1 | 1890-03-28 | O |
CA0472 | 5 | 1890-03-28 | O |
10CW0035 | 3 | 1890-03-28 | S |
03/28/1890 | 3 | 1890-03-28 | 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 2,188 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,188 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 1,446 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 196 | 6.9 |
| 2012 | 1,028 | 1st lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 200 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 1,475 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 267 | 6.2 |
| 2014 | 2,385 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 364 | 10.1 |
| 2015 | 3,577 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 360 | 10.4 |
| 2016 | 3,222 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 328 | 8.9 |
| 2017 | 3,698 | 15th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 335 | 12.9 |
| 2018 | 1,787 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 331 | 4.9 |
| 2019 | 2,530 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 364 | 7.5 |
| 2020 | 2,597 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 359 | 7.5 |
| 2021 | 1,725 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 351 | 6.7 |
| 2022 | 1,520 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 301 | 5.8 |
| 2023 | 1,877 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 256 | 7.5 |
| 2024 | 3,122 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 366 | 8.7 |
| 2025 | 2,188 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 7.3 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 14388 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% of the irrigation seasons in 1954-2025 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.