Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SLESINGER DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 2900717 · 1 · WHITE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 02:57 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 1950-10-31 — 258th 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: DILLINGER SPRING DITCH (1950-09-02). Immediately behind: CRESCENT LAKE RESERVOIR (1950-10-31).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
36828.01950-10-311962-04-19 1.00.0 CIRRFIS R-30

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 109 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 31 AF — 28% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2006 378 15th lowest of 15 · 347% of median 334 2.5
2007 108 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median 161 1.5
2008 134 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median 224 1.5
2009 210 14th lowest of 15 · 193% of median 304 1.5
2010 193 13th lowest of 15 · 177% of median 186 1.4
2011 56 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median 137 0.4
2012 138 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median 186 1.1
2013 116 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 156 0.4
2014 71 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median 156 0.4
2015 99 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 163 0.5
2016 116 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 179 0.7
2017 72 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median 180 0.3
2018 31 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median 93 0.3
2019 109 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 107 1.0
2020 31 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median 90 0.3

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 13028 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2020 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.