Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ULIN AND CO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700841 · 1 · GYPSUM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:53 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 1885-10-03 — 51st 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: BOOTH PUMP AND PIPELINE (1885-06-20). Immediately behind: DITCH NO 4 DITCH (1886-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13060.0 | 1885-10-03 | 1889-12-17 | 4.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
| 14463.0 | 1889-08-06 | 1889-12-17 | 0.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 87 |
| 23802.2374 | 1914-12-31 | 1915-06-07 | 2.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37AEX, 37B |
| 52960.52838 | 1994-08-31 | 1995-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMRECFISFIRDOMAUGWLD | |
| 60264.0 | 2014-12-30 | 2014-12-31 | 0.0 | 1.5 | C | MUN |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
14CW3167, 95CW0347, CA0294, CA0374.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
14CW3167 | 1 | 2014-12-31 | S |
95CW0347 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
CA0294 | 7 | 1915-06-07 | O, S |
CA0374 | 2 | 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 131 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 121 AF — 92% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 24 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 62 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 36 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 93 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 50 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 127 | 0.2 |
| 2006 | 167 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 85 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 177 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 140 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 313 | 14th lowest of 15 · 239% of median | 159 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 336 | 15th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 168 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 131 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 210 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 170 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 157 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 77 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 131 | 0.3 |
| 2018 | 136 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 165 | 0.6 |
| 2019 | 154 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 75 | 1.1 |
| 2020 | 121 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 95 | 0.9 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6521 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2020 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.