Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SLATE CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600800 · 1 · SLATE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:21 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 1888-08-01 — 86th 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: HAMILTON DAVIDSON DITCH (1888-08-01). Immediately behind: BRADDOCK DITCH (1889-05-06).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14093.0 | 1888-08-01 | 1910-03-02 | 13.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 53 |
| 20615.0 | 1906-06-11 | 1910-03-02 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRROTH | 173 |
| 25715.24262 | 1916-06-05 | 1920-12-23 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 212 |
| 32075.25566 | 1919-12-31 | 1952-03-10 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 326 |
| 49673.47786 | 1980-10-31 | 1986-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIROTH | |
| 56611.0 | 2004-12-29 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | AUG | |
| 56611.0 | 2004-12-29 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
04CW0237, 95CW0089, 95CW0173, CA1277, 86CW0359.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04CW0237 | 1 | 2004-12-31 | O |
95CW0089 | 1 | 1986-12-31 | S |
95CW0173 | 3 | 1952-03-10 | O, S |
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | O |
86CW0359 | 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 1,811 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,852 AF — 102% of that, and 9th 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 | 1,529 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 124 | 14.9 |
| 2007 | 1,477 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 163 | 15.1 |
| 2008 | 929 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 39 | 13.3 |
| 2009 | 1,549 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 60 | 18.1 |
| 2010 | 1,811 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 73 | 21.3 |
| 2015 | 211 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 79 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 1,484 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 52 | 20.3 |
| 2017 | 2,566 | 15th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 130 | 17.2 |
| 2018 | 2,138 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 111 | 15.0 |
| 2019 | 1,985 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 132 | 13.0 |
| 2020 | 2,189 | 14th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 89 | 18.5 |
| 2021 | 1,329 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 141 | 17.0 |
| 2022 | 2,088 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 180 | 17.0 |
| 2023 | 2,183 | 13th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 176 | 20.3 |
| 2024 | 1,852 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 119 | 19.0 |
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 (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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5663 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2024 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.