Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SKIFF AND SCHLIFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700807 · 1 · GYPSUM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:10 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 1888-03-15 — 81st 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: HERITAGE EAGLE VILLAS NO. 1 WELL (1887-10-30). Immediately behind: CASTLE NO 1 DITCH (1889-03-15).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13954.0 | 1888-03-15 | 1889-12-17 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 63 |
| 14001.0 | 1888-05-01 | 1889-12-17 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68 |
| 23802.2374 | 1914-12-31 | 1915-06-07 | 1.95 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 29EX, 63EX |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0294, 85CW0600, CA0922, CA0374.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0294 | 6 | 1915-06-07 | O, S |
85CW0600 | 4 | 1915-06-07 | O, S |
CA0922 | 1 | 1889-12-17 | O |
CA0374 | 1 | 1889-12-17 | 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 218 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 218 AF — 100% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | — | 169 | 0.4 |
| 2003 | 121 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 158 | 0.6 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 122 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 168 | 0.4 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 212 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 179 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 351 | 15th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 219 | 184 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2017 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2020 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2021 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2023 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
| 2024 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 218 | 184 | 0.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+5 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.008).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7102 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% 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.