Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHEEP CABIN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900711 · 1 · SHEEP CABIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:11 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 1892-05-01 — 102nd 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: MESA DITCH (1891-01-12). Immediately behind: LONG MEADOW DITCH (1893-05-24).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15462.0 | 1892-05-01 | 1902-01-20 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | #61 |
| 19012.18414 | 1900-06-01 | 1912-11-13 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #156 |
| 57708.0 | 2007-12-31 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 3.0 | C | STO | |
| 60560.0 | 2015-10-22 | 2007-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
07CW0103, CA0308, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
07CW0103 | 4 | 2007-12-31 | O, S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | S |
CA0073 | 1 | 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 32 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 23 AF — 72% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 32 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 29 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 30 | 0.6 |
| 2011 | 99 | 11th lowest of 15 · 309% of median | 84 | 0.7 |
| 2012 | 27 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 35 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 24 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 40 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 238 | 14th lowest of 15 · 744% of median | 106 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 28 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 36 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 44 | 9th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 41 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 50 | 10th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 77 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 145 | 12th lowest of 15 · 453% of median | 93 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 974 | 15th lowest of 15 · 3044% of median | 92 | 7.7 |
| 2020 | 187 | 13th lowest of 15 · 584% of median | 93 | 2.6 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 25 | 0.1 |
| 2025 | 23 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 66 | 0.3 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3984 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.