Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WEMINUCHE PASS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3104637 · 1 · LOS PINOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1934-07-28 — 360th 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: INDIAN CREEK PIPELINE (1927-08-27). Immediately behind: PINE R WEMINUCHE PASS D (1934-10-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30889.0 | 1934-07-28 | 1966-03-07 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRROTH | 65-12 |
| 30996.0 | 1934-11-12 | 1966-03-07 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRROTH | 65-15 |
| 31281.0 | 1935-08-24 | 1966-03-07 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRROTH | 65-17 |
| 36691.0 | 1950-06-16 | 1966-03-07 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRROTH | 65-29 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1248-B.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1248-B | 4 | 1966-03-07 | S |
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 847 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 938 AF — 111% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2,706 | 14th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 89 | 39.0 |
| 2006 | 242 | 4th lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 16 | 18.0 |
| 2007 | 1,046 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 30 | 27.0 |
| 2008 | 743 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 45 | 24.0 |
| 2009 | 847 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 42 | 15.0 |
| 2010 | 653 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 19 | 25.0 |
| 2011 | 229 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 30 | 38.0 |
| 2012 | 219 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 16 | 12.0 |
| 2013 | 797 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 66 | 26.0 |
| 2014 | 1,419 | 11th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 59 | 29.0 |
| 2015 | 2,950 | 15th lowest of 15 · 348% of median | 129 | 45.0 |
| 2016 | 1,935 | 13th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 180 | 44.0 |
| 2017 | 1,471 | 12th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 136 | 29.0 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 938 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 304 | 18.2 |
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 | 3179 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1956-2025 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.