Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JONES CASTLE CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3701279 · 1 · CASTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:40 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 1884-11-19 — 149th 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: CASTLE CR DITCH ALT PT A (1884-11-19). Immediately behind: C K P DITCH (1884-12-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251.12742 | 1884-11-19 | 1901-03-05 | 0.0624 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 139 |
| 30894.25159 | 1918-11-19 | 1936-10-03 | 0.0064 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 434 |
| 51959.0 | 1992-04-04 | 1992-12-31 | 0.5 | 1.5 | C | IRRRECDOMOTH |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
92CW0111, 92CW0110, 14CW3125, 00CW0066, 92CW0113.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
92CW0111 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
92CW0110 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
14CW3125 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
00CW0066 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
92CW0113 | 2 | 1936-10-03 | 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 17 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 80 AF — 471% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 39 | 13th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 105 | 0.4 |
| 2001 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 72 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 197 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 7 | 6th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 124 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 72 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 67 | 14th lowest of 15 · 394% of median | 145 | 0.5 |
| 2006 | 17 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 132 | 0.4 |
| 2007 | 11 | 7th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 178 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 27 | 10th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 170 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 31 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 171 | 0.2 |
| 2010 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 110 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 1 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 159 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 19 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 168 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 36 | 12th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 186 | 0.2 |
| 2017 | 80 | 15th lowest of 15 · 471% of median | 97 | 1.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2610 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2017 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.