Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SQUAW CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700817 · 1 · SQUAW CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:50 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 1888-07-01 — 288th 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: J P O NO 2 DITCH (1908-06-03). Immediately behind: EAGLE RIVER DIVR PT NO. 1 (1888-07-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22338.14062 | 1888-07-01 | 1911-06-05 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTKAUG | 289 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0556, 90CW0012, 87CW0038, 01CW0216.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0556 | 1 | 1911-06-05 | S |
90CW0012 | 2 | 1911-06-05 | S |
87CW0038 | 2 | 1911-06-05 | S |
01CW0216 | 1 | 1911-06-05 | 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 137 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 137 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 290 | 12th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 153 | 1.8 |
| 1991 | 279 | 11th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 160 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 598 | 15th lowest of 15 · 436% of median | 152 | 2.1 |
| 1993 | 521 | 14th lowest of 15 · 380% of median | 150 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 166 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 162 | 0.7 |
| 1995 | 321 | 13th lowest of 15 · 234% of median | 130 | 3.2 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 19 | 7th lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 20 | 0.5 |
| 2002 | 5 | 6th lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 13 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 278 | 10th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 137 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 137 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 139 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-13 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.015).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3877 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2021 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.