Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DOWELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900582 · 1 · MILL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 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 1885-04-10 — 81st 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: C H LOUCKS DITCH (1884-06-30). Immediately behind: HOLY TERROR DITCH (1886-05-06).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12884.0 | 1885-04-10 | 1902-01-20 | 0.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #16 |
| 14336.0 | 1889-04-01 | 1902-01-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #43 |
| 14366.0 | 1889-05-01 | 1902-01-20 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #44 |
| 15706.0 | 1892-12-31 | 1902-01-20 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #69 |
| 41016.3558 | 1947-06-01 | 1968-12-19 | 3.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68-103 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0308-D, 01CW0107, CA0709, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
01CW0107 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0709 | 2 | 1902-01-20 | O |
CA0073 | 2 | 1902-01-20 | 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 256 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 9 AF — 4% of that, and 1st 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 | 164 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 89 | 1.9 |
| 2012 | 184 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 57 | 2.7 |
| 2013 | 290 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 53 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 92 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 84 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 261 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 43 | 5.3 |
| 2016 | 246 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 100 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 256 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 60 | 4.6 |
| 2018 | 256 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 76 | 4.6 |
| 2019 | 647 | 14th lowest of 15 · 253% of median | 129 | 6.4 |
| 2020 | 794 | 15th lowest of 15 · 310% of median | 93 | 8.1 |
| 2021 | 408 | 13th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 103 | 4.7 |
| 2022 | 372 | 12th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 115 | 3.7 |
| 2023 | 172 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 30 | 3.6 |
| 2024 | 50 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 75 | 1.2 |
| 2025 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 22 | 0.2 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5096 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.