Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THOMPSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801131 · 1 · THOMPSON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1881-05-01 — 7th 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: PIONEER DITCH (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: BORAM AND WHITE DITCH (1881-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1889-05-11 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
| 11611.0 | 1881-10-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18A |
| 30941.20341 | 1905-09-10 | 1936-08-25 | 2.27 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 365 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA3082, CA4019, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA4019 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0132 | 1 | 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 489 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 674 AF — 138% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 91 | 1.5 |
| 1998 | 1,216 | 14th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | 166 | 8.5 |
| 1999 | 906 | 13th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 200 | 4.5 |
| 2000 | 1,220 | 15th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 142 | 6.8 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 262 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 62 | 4.2 |
| 2006 | 475 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 63 | 5.0 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 577 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 133 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 606 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 158 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 489 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 107 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 899 | 12th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 144 | 3.2 |
| 2018 | 101 | 4th lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 128 | 0.4 |
| 2019 | 674 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 63 | 5.7 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3197 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2019 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.