Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VEITS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3400574 · 1 · MANCOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:57 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 1877-07-15 — 177th 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: NO 6 DITCH (1877-07-15). Immediately behind: FRANK DITCH (1878-05-15).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10058.0 | 1877-07-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-5 |
| 10362.0 | 1878-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-6 |
| 10727.0 | 1879-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-7 |
| 11093.0 | 1880-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-8 |
| 11464.0 | 1881-05-21 | 1893-04-28 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-11 |
| 11823.0 | 1882-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.314 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-13 |
| 12601.0 | 1884-07-01 | 1893-04-28 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-22 |
| 13649.0 | 1887-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-33 |
| 14380.0 | 1889-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-36 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1993, 05CW0003.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1993 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
05CW0003 | 9 | 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 867 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 558 AF — 64% of that, and 1st 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 | 1,449 | 15th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 297 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 1,312 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 366 | 6.7 |
| 2013 | 987 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 302 | 8.0 |
| 2014 | 1,287 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 237 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,175 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 332 | 6.7 |
| 2016 | 980 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 177 | 7.6 |
| 2017 | 1,158 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 163 | 7.7 |
| 2018 | 592 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 210 | 5.6 |
| 2019 | 863 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 153 | 7.3 |
| 2020 | 867 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 195 | 6.6 |
| 2021 | 712 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 267 | 6.0 |
| 2022 | 762 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 365 | 5.8 |
| 2023 | 855 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 365 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 747 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 366 | 6.2 |
| 2025 | 558 | 1st lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 304 | 4.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-54 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5226 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1952-2025 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.