Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DILLINGER SPRING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900578 · 1 · RIO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:01 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1950-09-02 — 257th most senior of the 853 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: CATCHPOLE MILL-CREEK D (1950-08-26). Immediately behind: SLESINGER DITCH (1950-10-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36769.0 | 1950-09-02 | 1962-04-19 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | #350 |
| 41016.40383 | 1960-07-25 | 1968-12-19 | 0.85 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-170 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0308.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | 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 106 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 62 AF — 58% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 264 | 14th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | 221 | 1.2 |
| 2007 | 299 | 15th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | 246 | 1.9 |
| 2008 | 132 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 89 | 1.5 |
| 2009 | 97 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 90 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 148 | 12th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 154 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 200 | 13th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 144 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 81 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 157 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 32 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 68 | 0.5 |
| 2014 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 80 | 0.3 |
| 2015 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 66 | 0.3 |
| 2016 | 131 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 171 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 106 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 155 | 0.5 |
| 2018 | 69 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 113 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 117 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 77 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 62 | 4th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 97 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-11 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12252 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2020 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.