Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
C C D DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900523 · 1 · PARACHUTE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:44 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 1914-04-01 — 256th most senior of the 1758 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: P L R DITCH (1913-05-01). Immediately behind: CHARLEY DERE DITCH (1914-10-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31031.23466 | 1914-04-01 | 1937-01-04 | 0.76 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOMAUGPWROTH | 203 |
| 31031.27818 | 1926-03-01 | 1937-01-04 | 1.77 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOMAUGPWROTH | 207B |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W2206, CA3124, 99CW0300.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2206 | 4 | 1937-01-04 | S |
CA3124 | 2 | 1937-01-04 | S |
99CW0300 | 4 | 1937-01-04 | 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 138 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1997, came in at 75 AF — 54% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1966 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 1967 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 1968 | 401 | 13th lowest of 15 · 291% of median | 74 | 4.0 |
| 1969 | 157 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 62 | 2.0 |
| 1971 | 226 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 61 | 3.0 |
| 1972 | 164 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 55 | 3.0 |
| 1973 | 29 | 5th lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 24 | 0.9 |
| 1974 | 602 | 14th lowest of 15 · 436% of median | 148 | 4.6 |
| 1975 | 138 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 27 | 2.9 |
| 1976 | 298 | 12th lowest of 15 · 216% of median | 95 | 1.6 |
| 1993 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 1994 | 26 | 4th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 27 | 0.5 |
| 1995 | 825 | 15th lowest of 15 · 598% of median | 140 | 4.0 |
| 1996 | 64 | 6th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 54 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 75 | 7th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 67 | 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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2408 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-1997 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.