Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COCHETOPA MEADOWS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800533 · 1 · PAULINE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1920-06-01 — 494th most senior of the 1505 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: RED JACKET PIPELINE (1902-06-01). Immediately behind: COCHETOPA CREEK SPG TANK (1926-04-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25719.0 | 1920-06-01 | 1921-10-25 | 9.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 192 |
| 28311.25749 | 1920-07-01 | 1943-04-19 | 38.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 316 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA5591, 99CW0038, CA2079, CA1670.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5591 | 1 | 1961-12-15 | S |
99CW0038 | 1 | 1961-12-15 | S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1670 | 1 | 1921-10-25 | 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 1,241 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 349 AF — 28% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 2,092 | 11th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 168 | 12.5 |
| 1989 | 1,241 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 169 | 15.0 |
| 1990 | 2,423 | 12th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 191 | 9.2 |
| 1991 | 683 | 6th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 66 | 6.1 |
| 1992 | 1,260 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 144 | 12.0 |
| 1993 | 3,730 | 14th lowest of 15 · 301% of median | 203 | 20.0 |
| 1994 | 286 | 4th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 23 | 7.6 |
| 1995 | 6,020 | 15th lowest of 15 · 485% of median | 98 | 40.0 |
| 1996 | 1,031 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 39 | 20.0 |
| 1997 | 3,251 | 13th lowest of 15 · 262% of median | 64 | 35.0 |
| 1999 | 1,750 | 10th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 95 | 19.2 |
| 2000 | 258 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 14 | 10.0 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 66 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 26 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 349 | 5th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 42 | 4.3 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2699 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2006 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.