Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000733 · 1 · TONGUE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1884-05-03 — 119th 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: CEDAR RIDGE DITCH (1884-04-01). Immediately behind: BARNARD DITCH (1884-09-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12542.0 | 1884-05-03 | 1889-06-17 | 2.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
| 29260.14414 | 1889-06-18 | 1937-05-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H9 |
| 36680.0 | 1950-06-05 | 1954-03-20 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | J368 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3503, CA2563, CA0038, 75CW0069.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2563 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA0038 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
75CW0069 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,321 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 3,544 AF — 268% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,195 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 186 | 10.2 |
| 2010 | 1,352 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 203 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 1,321 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 189 | 8.0 |
| 2012 | 2,000 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 190 | 6.9 |
| 2013 | 1,126 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 163 | 7.0 |
| 2014 | 1,460 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 137 | 6.9 |
| 2015 | 1,839 | 13th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 175 | 6.4 |
| 2016 | 1,505 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 177 | 5.5 |
| 2017 | 742 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 96 | 4.0 |
| 2018 | 1,034 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 195 | 4.7 |
| 2019 | 768 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 140 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 966 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 138 | 6.6 |
| 2021 | 869 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 193 | 5.4 |
| 2022 | 1,531 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 207 | 10.5 |
| 2023 | 3,544 | 15th lowest of 15 · 268% of median | 191 | 16.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 9000 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 79% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2023 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.