Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SEVERO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100508 · 1 · LOS PINOS RIVER · 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 1868-07-25 — 69th most senior of the 1037 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: LA BOCA DITCH (1868-07-25). Immediately behind: NANNICE DITCH (1868-07-25).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6781.0 | 1868-07-25 | 1930-10-25 | 4.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | P-1 |
| 58215.0 | 2009-05-21 | 2009-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIRSTK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
09CW0084, CA7736.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0084 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
CA7736 | 1 | 1930-10-25 | 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 2,947 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,262 AF — 77% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 3,645 | 14th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 156 | 15.1 |
| 2005 | 2,949 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 159 | 14.9 |
| 2006 | 3,806 | 15th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 149 | 15.9 |
| 2007 | 2,244 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 146 | 9.3 |
| 2008 | 2,827 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 150 | 13.5 |
| 2009 | 3,368 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 161 | 14.3 |
| 2010 | 3,563 | 13th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 150 | 15.9 |
| 2011 | 2,669 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 158 | 13.5 |
| 2012 | 2,947 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 142 | 12.0 |
| 2013 | 3,316 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 156 | 13.9 |
| 2014 | 3,254 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 152 | 19.0 |
| 2015 | 1,752 | 1st lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 173 | 10.0 |
| 2016 | 1,823 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 152 | 9.3 |
| 2017 | 2,022 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 155 | 17.2 |
| 2025 | 2,262 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 187 | 9.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-69 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8207 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 68% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2025 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.