Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORMAN DITCH AP
Structure dossier · WDID 2800780 · 1 · COCHETOPA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 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 1903-09-04 — 201st 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: SHARP DITCH (1903-09-04). Immediately behind: DAVIS NO 2 DITCH (1903-10-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19842.19604 | 1903-09-04 | 1910-05-17 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 139 |
| 35168.22051 | 1910-05-17 | 1956-04-16 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 341 |
| 35168.27528 | 1925-05-15 | 1956-04-16 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 345 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03CW0128.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0128 | 3 | 1956-04-16 | 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 317 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 296 AF — 93% of that, and 6th 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 | 371 | 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 76 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 308 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 67 | 4.5 |
| 2013 | 317 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 67 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 110 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 40 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 645 | 12th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 70 | 6.0 |
| 2016 | 1,073 | 15th lowest of 15 · 338% of median | 47 | 12.3 |
| 2017 | 774 | 14th lowest of 15 · 244% of median | 87 | 11.3 |
| 2018 | 437 | 10th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 147 | 3.2 |
| 2019 | 678 | 13th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 41 | 11.3 |
| 2020 | 253 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 69 | 1.9 |
| 2021 | 112 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 63 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 79 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 47 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 533 | 11th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 90 | 3.1 |
| 2025 | 296 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 47 | 3.5 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1396 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 2005-2025 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.