Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARY CONTRAT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900615 · 1 · WEST ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 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 1923-06-15 — 227th 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: LINDAUER DITCH (1905-04-06). Immediately behind: COULTER WELL NO 1 (1924-06-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26868.26828 | 1923-06-15 | 1923-12-08 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 185 |
| 52595.41272 | 1962-12-31 | 1994-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | OTH |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
94CW0220, CA2375.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0220 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA2375 | 1 | 1923-12-08 | 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 74 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 73 AF — 99% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 147 | 14th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 158 | 0.8 |
| 1992 | 162 | 15th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 181 | 0.4 |
| 1993 | 140 | 13th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 175 | 0.4 |
| 1994 | 71 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 73 | 0.5 |
| 1995 | 129 | 12th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 143 | 0.5 |
| 1996 | 74 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 0.4 |
| 1997 | 85 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 134 | 0.4 |
| 1998 | 57 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 132 | 0.2 |
| 1999 | 91 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 184 | 0.2 |
| 2000 | 51 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 87 | 0.3 |
| 2001 | 49 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 84 | 0.3 |
| 2002 | 15 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 53 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 76 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 155 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 35 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 90 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 73 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 184 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6823 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2005 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.