Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

COOPER WASTE WATER DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 3001502 · 1 · COTTONWOOD GULCH · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 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 1974-05-31 — 1407th most senior of the 2277 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: COSTA SPRING (1941-12-31). Immediately behind: BRIDGE-LUTZ DIVERSION (1977-07-01).

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
51864.454411974-05-311992-12-31 0.250.0 CIRR

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 18 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 9 AF — 50% of that, and 3rd 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)
2011 18 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 88 0.2
2012 18 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 86 0.3
2013 10 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median 57 0.2
2014 23 12th lowest of 15 · 128% of median 60 0.3
2015 28 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median 105 0.2
2016 24 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median 120 0.2
2017 21 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median 116 0.1
2018 6 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median 45 0.1
2019 11 5th lowest of 15 · 61% of median 71 0.2
2020 3 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median 34 0.2
2021 22 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median 87 0.2
2022 35 15th lowest of 15 · 194% of median 93 0.3
2023 17 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median 61 0.2
2024 15 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median 106 0.2
2025 9 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median 53 0.1

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2198 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1995-2025 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.