Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

OAK LEAF DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 4000652 · 1 · KISER CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 01:19 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 1903-04-01 — 1400th 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: FORREST RESERVOIR (1902-08-13). Immediately behind: FIRE MOUNTAIN CANAL (TERROR CREEK) (1903-07-01).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
25807.194481903-04-011930-02-10 1.00.0 CIRR G37

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 25 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 24 AF — 96% of that, and 6th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2010 65 15th lowest of 15 · 260% of median 67 1.5
2011 40 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median 75 0.5
2012 14 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median 27 0.4
2013 24 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median 36 0.6
2014 31 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median 40 0.6
2015 62 14th lowest of 15 · 248% of median 64 0.8
2016 25 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 47 0.3
2017 56 13th lowest of 15 · 224% of median 69 0.6
2018 1 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median 4 0.2
2019 33 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median 45 0.5
2020 7 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median 6 0.8
2021 13 3rd lowest of 15 · 52% of median 14 0.8
2022 26 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median 22 1.0
2023 16 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median 22 0.4
2024 24 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median 31 0.5

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 3248 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 28% 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.