Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SNOWBALL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900718 · 1 · TURKEY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1896-06-27 — 123rd 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: RUBY MASCO PUMP (WEBER) (1896-06-10). Immediately behind: FISH CREEK DITCH (1897-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16980.0 | 1896-06-27 | 1903-09-05 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #98 |
| 18135.0 | 1899-08-26 | 1902-01-20 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #113 |
| 18992.0 | 1901-12-31 | 1902-01-20 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #126 |
| 19078.0 | 1902-03-27 | 1912-11-13 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #143 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA0308-D, 01CW0053, CA0308, 91CW0065, CA0073, CA0665.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
01CW0053 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | S |
91CW0065 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | S |
CA0073 | 2 | 1903-09-05 | O |
CA0665 | 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 3,090 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,650 AF — 86% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 3,090 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 160 | 15.2 |
| 2012 | 3,275 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 184 | 15.5 |
| 2013 | 3,250 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | — | 180 | 13.3 |
| 2014 | 2,881 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 178 | 12.6 |
| 2015 | 2,907 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 194 | 21.3 |
| 2016 | 2,282 | 1st lowest of 15 · 74% of median | — | 178 | 13.8 |
| 2017 | 3,333 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 161 | 20.0 |
| 2018 | 3,312 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | — | 192 | 16.8 |
| 2019 | 2,340 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 159 | 20.0 |
| 2020 | 3,350 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 240 | 13.5 |
| 2021 | 4,750 | 15th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | — | 306 | 15.8 |
| 2022 | 2,910 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 169 | 14.5 |
| 2023 | 2,556 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | — | 143 | 11.2 |
| 2024 | 3,469 | 14th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 154 | 21.3 |
| 2025 | 2,650 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 178 | 9.1 |
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 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15191 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.