Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MOUNT SOPRIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800880 · 1 · WEST SOPRIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 1885-07-15 — 183rd most senior of the 4788 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: ROARING FORK LAND & CATTLE AUG PLAN (1885-07-01). Immediately behind: MONARCH DITCH (1885-07-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12980.0 | 1885-07-15 | 1889-05-11 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 130 |
| 13788.0 | 1887-10-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 183 |
| 20539.19509 | 1903-06-01 | 1906-08-02 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 219B |
| 20539.20228 | 1905-05-20 | 1906-08-02 | 3.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 222 |
| 37552.37524 | 1952-09-26 | 1958-06-20 | 32.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 691 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4613, CA1155, 06CW0169, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4613 | 1 | 1958-06-20 | S |
CA1155 | 1 | 1906-08-02 | S |
06CW0169 | 1 | 1906-08-02 | S |
CA0132 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 1,458 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 748 AF — 51% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 806 | 7th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | — | 99 | 7.5 |
| 2011 | 1,807 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | — | 138 | 15.3 |
| 2012 | 99 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | — | 31 | 2.5 |
| 2013 | 671 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | — | 64 | 6.7 |
| 2014 | 1,458 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 144 | 13.2 |
| 2015 | 1,890 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 283 | 13.0 |
| 2016 | 1,871 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 152 | 15.0 |
| 2017 | 731 | 5th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | — | 127 | 10.5 |
| 2018 | 668 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | — | 80 | 7.5 |
| 2019 | 1,975 | 14th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | — | 240 | 14.1 |
| 2020 | 2,024 | 15th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | — | 124 | 15.0 |
| 2021 | 436 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | — | 50 | 5.2 |
| 2022 | 1,633 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 106 | 13.3 |
| 2023 | 1,965 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 148 | 12.8 |
| 2024 | 748 | 6th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | — | 130 | 9.3 |
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 | 9231 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.