Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRYSTAL CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3400514 · 1 · CRYSTAL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:09 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 1890-05-15 — 197th most senior of the 495 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: WILLDEN & BRINKERHOFF D (1888-06-12). Immediately behind: WEBER RESERVOIR INLET D (1892-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14745.0 | 1890-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 2.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-41 |
| 15110.0 | 1891-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-42 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4502, CA1993, CA1336, CA1054.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4502 | 3 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1993 | 3 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1336 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1054 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | 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 96 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 17 AF — 18% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 917 | 15th lowest of 15 · 955% of median | 119 | 7.2 |
| 2012 | 38 | 5th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 28 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 96 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 143 | 2.4 |
| 2014 | 249 | 10th lowest of 15 · 259% of median | 229 | 2.3 |
| 2015 | 474 | 14th lowest of 15 · 494% of median | 274 | 5.6 |
| 2016 | 442 | 13th lowest of 15 · 460% of median | 145 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 320 | 11th lowest of 15 · 333% of median | 93 | 3.7 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 12 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 378 | 12th lowest of 15 · 394% of median | 112 | 4.6 |
| 2020 | 68 | 7th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 60 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 18 | 4th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 48 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 41 | 6th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 35 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 203 | 9th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 73 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 7 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 17 | 0.4 |
| 2025 | 17 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 29 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-21 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13049 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 80% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2025 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.