Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BLACK DIKE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3200509 · 1 · MCELMO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:40 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1889-04-15 — 127th most senior of the 638 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: GREEN DITCH (1888-06-15). Immediately behind: KELLY PLACE PUMP (1889-04-15).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14350.0 | 1889-04-15 | 1962-08-14 | 13.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-8 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA1077, 95CW0010, 82CW0021, 08CW0025, 01CW0107.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1077 | 3 | 1962-08-14 | O |
95CW0010 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
82CW0021 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
08CW0025 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
01CW0107 | 3 | 1962-08-14 | 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 3,559 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,590 AF — 129% of that, and 12th 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 | 3,972 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 3,225 | 217 | 12.9 |
| 2012 | 2,488 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 1,665 | 235 | 7.4 |
| 2013 | 2,874 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 2,195 | 204 | 11.0 |
| 2014 | 3,559 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 2,119 | 238 | 11.5 |
| 2015 | 3,318 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 1,955 | 268 | 11.6 |
| 2016 | 4,956 | 14th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 3,680 | 288 | 13.9 |
| 2017 | 4,593 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 2,956 | 288 | 10.9 |
| 2018 | 2,402 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 1,263 | 178 | 9.8 |
| 2019 | 3,895 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 2,485 | 223 | 15.3 |
| 2020 | 5,334 | 15th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 3,555 | 238 | 16.9 |
| 2021 | 2,388 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 1,385 | 177 | 11.7 |
| 2022 | 1,807 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 911 | 224 | 11.2 |
| 2023 | 4,583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 3,667 | 198 | 15.9 |
| 2024 | 3,492 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 2,748 | 248 | 11.2 |
| 2025 | 4,590 | 12th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 3,663 | 288 | 13.8 |
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 (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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9672 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 72% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2025 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.