Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GUTHRIE THOMAS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600645 · 1 · ELLIOTT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:11 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 1897-05-01 — 164th 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: PALMER-MCKINLEY DITCH (1896-09-01). Immediately behind: BELLS BLUE RIVER DITCH (1897-06-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17288.0 | 1897-05-01 | 1910-03-02 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 104 |
| 19919.0 | 1904-07-15 | 1910-03-02 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1581/2 |
| 20294.0 | 1905-07-25 | 1910-03-02 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 168 |
| 21975.20392 | 1905-10-31 | 1912-11-15 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 174 |
| 32075.23878 | 1915-05-18 | 1952-03-10 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 320 |
| 33846.0 | 1942-09-01 | 1952-03-10 | 3.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 357 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA1805, 11/15/1912, CA1969, CA1823, 91CW0159.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1805 | 2 | 1952-03-10 | S |
11/15/1912 | 1 | 1912-11-15 | S |
CA1969 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | O |
CA1823 | 3 | 1910-03-02 | O |
91CW0159 | 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 3,575 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 3,099 AF — 87% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 5,247 | 15th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 162 | 38.7 |
| 2010 | 4,459 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 160 | 39.0 |
| 2011 | 4,327 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 72 | 37.0 |
| 2012 | 4,998 | 14th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 169 | 15.0 |
| 2014 | 3,575 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 61 | 38.7 |
| 2015 | 3,233 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 105 | 44.0 |
| 2016 | 3,392 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 73 | 37.3 |
| 2017 | 4,144 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 99 | 37.3 |
| 2018 | 3,620 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 171 | 37.0 |
| 2019 | 4,987 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 84 | 35.3 |
| 2020 | 2,774 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 74 | 37.0 |
| 2021 | 3,110 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 142 | 37.0 |
| 2022 | 2,729 | 1st lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 120 | 37.4 |
| 2023 | 3,049 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 130 | 41.9 |
| 2024 | 3,099 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 126 | 38.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-122 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6722 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1967-2024 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.