Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TEXAS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000609 · 1 · DOUG CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1883-11-01 — 106th most senior of the 4661 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: FRUITLAND MESA DOM WL #1 (1883-10-24). Immediately behind: FAWCETT DITCH (1883-11-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12358.0 | 1883-11-01 | 1889-06-17 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
| 19413.15461 | 1892-04-30 | 1903-02-27 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 31924.15461 | 1892-04-30 | 1954-03-20 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J41 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA3503, CA0340, W3180.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA0340 | 1 | 1903-02-27 | S |
W3180 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 108 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 119 AF — 110% of that, and 9th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 118 | 8th lowest of 14 · 109% of median | 33 | 2.2 |
| 1971 | 42 | 4th lowest of 14 · 39% of median | 25 | 1.4 |
| 1972 | 64 | 5th lowest of 14 · 59% of median | 41 | 1.4 |
| 1973 | 135 | 10th lowest of 14 · 124% of median | 46 | 2.7 |
| 1974 | 203 | 13th lowest of 14 · 187% of median | 112 | 2.6 |
| 1975 | 173 | 12th lowest of 14 · 159% of median | 248 | 1.1 |
| 1976 | 99 | 7th lowest of 14 · 91% of median | 183 | 0.9 |
| 1977 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1978 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 155 | 11th lowest of 14 · 143% of median | 96 | 1.3 |
| 2021 | 82 | 6th lowest of 14 · 76% of median | 67 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 37 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 34% of median | 56 | 0.4 |
| 2023 | 268 | 14th lowest of 14 · 247% of median | 73 | 2.2 |
| 2024 | 119 | 9th lowest of 14 · 110% of median | 76 | 1.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 1062 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.