Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEPHENSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800693 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:54 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 1878-05-01 — 45th 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: JOHN B COATS NO 2 DITCH (1878-05-01). Immediately behind: KENNEDY DITCH NO 3 (1878-05-01).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.10348 | 1878-05-01 | 1904-04-29 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 16192.11859 | 1882-06-20 | 1904-04-29 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 16564.0 | 1895-05-08 | 1904-04-29 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115 |
| 28311.10348 | 1878-05-01 | 1943-04-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 207 |
| 28311.11859 | 1882-06-20 | 1943-04-19 | 7.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 228 |
| 28311.16564 | 1895-05-08 | 1943-04-19 | 8.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 269 |
| 28311.2135 | 1908-06-15 | 1943-04-19 | 7.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 293 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2079, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 4 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 3 | 1904-04-29 | 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 1,523 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,407 AF — 158% of that, and 14th 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 | 2,144 | 11th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 109 | 13.9 |
| 2012 | 191 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 63 | 2.9 |
| 2013 | 2,295 | 13th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 128 | 16.2 |
| 2014 | 609 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 69 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 2,212 | 12th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 100 | 28.6 |
| 2016 | 1,239 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 61 | 13.9 |
| 2017 | 1,523 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 10.9 |
| 2018 | 951 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 90 | 8.8 |
| 2019 | 3,056 | 15th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 63 | 35.5 |
| 2020 | 973 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 118 | 5.4 |
| 2021 | 1,272 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 115 | 7.5 |
| 2022 | 1,952 | 10th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 147 | 16.0 |
| 2023 | 331 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 40 | 5.4 |
| 2024 | 1,684 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 81 | 13.9 |
| 2025 | 2,407 | 14th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 85 | 16.0 |
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 (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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4930 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.