Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHEEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3400565 · 1 · MANCOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1878-05-15 — 182nd 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: LEE DITCH (1878-05-15). Immediately behind: WESTON AND JARRETT DITCH (1878-05-15).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10362.0 | 1878-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-6 |
| 11093.0 | 1880-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-8 |
| 11823.0 | 1882-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 2.386 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-13 |
| 12554.0 | 1884-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-20 |
| 14380.0 | 1889-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-36 |
| 30667.10957 | 1879-12-31 | 1963-03-22 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMOTH | 62-3 |
| 30667.1435 | 1889-04-15 | 1963-03-22 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-13 |
| 55882.55303 | 2001-05-31 | 2003-12-31 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
03CW0005, CA0967, W1204, CA1993, CA1981, CA1600, CA1054, 05CW0003.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0005 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
CA0967 | 2 | 1963-03-22 | S |
W1204 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1993 | 4 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1981 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1600 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1054 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
05CW0003 | 2 | 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 1,155 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 659 AF — 57% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 1,438 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 366 | 7.5 |
| 1997 | 2,029 | 15th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 365 | 8.2 |
| 1998 | 1,743 | 13th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 365 | 8.2 |
| 1999 | 2,005 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 365 | 7.0 |
| 2000 | 1,464 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 366 | 8.0 |
| 2001 | 1,267 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 7.5 |
| 2002 | 266 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 314 | 2.4 |
| 2003 | 953 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 365 | 8.0 |
| 2004 | 1,219 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 366 | 7.4 |
| 2005 | 1,155 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 4.7 |
| 2006 | 772 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 299 | 5.7 |
| 2007 | 977 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 265 | 4.4 |
| 2008 | 658 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 157 | 6.9 |
| 2009 | 650 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 139 | 4.2 |
| 2010 | 659 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 152 | 4.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-89 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15283 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2010 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.