Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HEINZE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900582 · 1 · MIDDLE RIFLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 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 1886-04-20 — 83rd 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: WILLIAMS CANAL (1886-03-15). Immediately behind: MANNING DITCH (1886-04-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13259.0 | 1886-04-20 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDRECDOMSTKAUG | 67 |
| 13608.0 | 1887-04-04 | 1889-05-11 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDRECDOMSTKAUG | 102 |
| 13741.0 | 1887-08-15 | 1889-05-11 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 120 |
| 13925.0 | 1888-02-15 | 1889-05-11 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDRECFIRDOMSTKAUGOTH | 125 |
Legal record & documents
22 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W3758, CA2713, CA0103, 97CW0060, 89CW0203, 02CW0150.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3758 | 6 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA2713 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0103 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
97CW0060 | 6 | 1889-05-11 | O |
89CW0203 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
02CW0150 | 6 | 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 851 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,394 AF — 164% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 305 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | — | 93 | 2.9 |
| 2011 | 851 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 210 | 3.8 |
| 2012 | 763 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 295 | 187 | 5.6 |
| 2013 | 571 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 338 | 186 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 1,563 | 12th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 845 | 190 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 2,174 | 15th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 923 | 200 | 8.1 |
| 2016 | 2,111 | 14th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 1,034 | 214 | 8.3 |
| 2017 | 815 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 401 | 275 | 3.4 |
| 2018 | 652 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 180 | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 1,643 | 13th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 358 | 275 | 6.1 |
| 2020 | 1,051 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 465 | 365 | 6.3 |
| 2021 | 606 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 280 | 365 | 2.7 |
| 2022 | 740 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 272 | 365 | 4.2 |
| 2023 | 1,453 | 11th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 713 | 365 | 4.8 |
| 2024 | 1,394 | 10th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 724 | 305 | 4.5 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11198 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% 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.