Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DUSING NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600597 · 1 · SLATE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1883-06-17 — 58th most senior of the 1247 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: STAFFORD DITCH (1883-06-01). Immediately behind: OLD WHETSTONE SHEEP CREEK DITCH (1883-07-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12221.0 | 1883-06-17 | 1910-03-02 | 1.31 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 21 |
| 20615.0 | 1906-06-11 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 173 |
| 23620.0 | 1914-09-02 | 1914-10-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 201 |
| 25715.24262 | 1916-06-05 | 1920-12-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 212 |
| 32075.25566 | 1919-12-31 | 1952-03-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 326 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
95CW0173, CA1277.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0173 | 4 | 1952-03-10 | O, S |
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 370 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 271 AF — 73% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 208 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 53 | 3.8 |
| 2007 | 416 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 71 | 4.6 |
| 2008 | 286 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 39 | 4.0 |
| 2009 | 475 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 60 | 6.0 |
| 2010 | 432 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 58 | 6.2 |
| 2015 | 255 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 48 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 369 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 50 | 3.8 |
| 2017 | 329 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 60 | 3.6 |
| 2018 | 294 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 61 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 370 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 3.6 |
| 2020 | 776 | 15th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 74 | 7.5 |
| 2021 | 631 | 14th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 61 | 10.1 |
| 2022 | 578 | 12th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 84 | 5.6 |
| 2023 | 579 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 82 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 271 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 81 | 3.8 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4441 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2024 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.