Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

METZGER DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 4000687 · 1 · SURFACE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 00:10 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 1919-08-10 — 1448th 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: MOREY DITCH (1919-04-20). Immediately behind: OAK LEAF DITCH (1920-06-10).

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
25807.254231919-08-101930-02-10 0.750.0 CIRR G95

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 142 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 129 AF — 91% 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 113 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median 185 0.5
2011 142 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 173 0.5
2012 152 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median 166 0.5
2013 80 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median 147 0.5
2014 150 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 196 0.6
2015 134 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median 159 0.5
2016 264 15th lowest of 15 · 186% of median 191 1.8
2017 188 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median 182 1.3
2018 56 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median 63 0.6
2019 179 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median 177 1.0
2020 96 4th lowest of 15 · 68% of median 119 0.7
2021 72 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median 66 0.7
2022 162 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median 139 0.8
2023 220 14th lowest of 15 · 155% of median 158 0.9
2024 129 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 107 0.7

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 10196 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 88% 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.