Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CREAMERY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700560 · 1 · LAKE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 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 1896-05-05 — 200th most senior of the 2162 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: TOURVILLE NO 2 DITCH (1894-06-01). Immediately behind: SUNDELL DITCH NO 1 (1897-04-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16927.0 | 1896-05-05 | 1901-03-05 | 6.3045 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDAUG | 172 |
| 30894.17657 | 1898-05-05 | 1936-10-03 | 12.809 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOMAUG | 383 |
| 47847.47481 | 1979-12-31 | 1981-12-31 | 0.0 | 5.0 | C | MUNRECFISFIRWLD | |
| 52595.51986 | 1992-05-01 | 1994-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRREVPWLD | |
| 54201.0 | 1998-05-25 | 1998-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRWLD |
Legal record & documents
25 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
98CW0108, 94CW0243, 01CW0220, 81CW0265, W3587, CA0963, 81CW0195, 09CW0160, CA0385.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0108 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
94CW0243 | 11 | 1994-12-31 | S |
01CW0220 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
81CW0265 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | S |
W3587 | 2 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0963 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
81CW0195 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | S |
09CW0160 | 3 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0385 | 1 | 1901-03-05 | S |
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 891 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,344 | 11th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 144 | 5.2 |
| 2011 | 1,274 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 137 | 6.9 |
| 2012 | 1,616 | 14th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 146 | 6.3 |
| 2013 | 1,595 | 13th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 144 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 1,511 | 12th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 154 | 6.9 |
| 2015 | 539 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 143 | 2.2 |
| 2016 | 1,236 | 9th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 129 | 7.7 |
| 2017 | 836 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 86 | 6.9 |
| 2018 | 1,841 | 15th lowest of 15 · 207% of median | 149 | 7.7 |
| 2019 | 891 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 137 | 7.2 |
| 2020 | 632 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 127 | 6.1 |
| 2021 | 254 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 201 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 515 | 4th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 365 | 2.1 |
| 2023 | 321 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 365 | 3.9 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 304 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-104 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8244 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.