Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CORYELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900539 · 1 · EAST ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:51 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 1883-06-01 — 42nd 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: SQUIER DITCH (1883-05-23). Immediately behind: RED ROCK DITCH (1883-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12205.0 | 1883-06-01 | 1889-05-11 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUG | 11 |
| 12578.0 | 1884-06-08 | 1889-05-11 | 1.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 16027.14881 | 1890-09-28 | 1894-06-19 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 145A |
| 32959.25995 | 1921-03-04 | 1943-01-11 | 9.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUG | 220S |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3431, 87CW0373, CA0596, 01CW0262, CA0103.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3431 | 1 | 1943-01-11 | S |
87CW0373 | 4 | 1943-01-11 | O, S |
CA0596 | 1 | 1894-06-19 | S |
01CW0262 | 2 | 1894-06-19 | S |
CA0103 | 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 1,647 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,798 AF — 109% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,647 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 182 | 6.9 |
| 2010 | 1,583 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 184 | 6.9 |
| 2011 | 1,930 | 13th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | — | 182 | 8.5 |
| 2012 | 2,021 | 14th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 2 | 222 | 6.9 |
| 2013 | 1,479 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 1 | 177 | 5.7 |
| 2014 | 1,536 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 3 | 184 | 6.4 |
| 2015 | 2,046 | 15th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 3 | 207 | 6.9 |
| 2016 | 924 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 101 | 5.7 |
| 2017 | 1,565 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 170 | 5.5 |
| 2018 | 1,533 | 4th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 184 | 5.0 |
| 2019 | 1,286 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 173 | 4.4 |
| 2020 | 1,876 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | — | 212 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 1,926 | 12th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | — | 177 | 6.9 |
| 2022 | 1,745 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 157 | 6.9 |
| 2024 | 1,798 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 204 | 6.9 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14093 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 88% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2024 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.