Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OMEGA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000773 · 1 · SURFACE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:51 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 1884-03-25 — 116th 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: GEORGIA DITCH (1884-03-15). Immediately behind: SPRING DITCH (1884-03-25).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12503.0 | 1884-03-25 | 1889-06-17 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 5 |
| 20501.1324 | 1886-04-01 | 1907-09-28 | 0.87 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 20501.14413 | 1889-06-17 | 1907-09-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 20501.1503 | 1891-02-24 | 1907-09-28 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 20501.17653 | 1898-05-01 | 1907-09-28 | 0.62 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 20501.18748 | 1901-05-01 | 1907-09-28 | 0.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 20501.19113 | 1902-05-01 | 1907-09-28 | 0.62 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 43 |
| 62091.46693 | 1977-11-03 | 2020-12-31 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
21CW0001, 20CW0040, CA3031, CA0457.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
21CW0001 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | S |
20CW0040 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | S |
CA3031 | 2 | 1907-09-28 | O, S |
CA0457 | 5 | 1907-09-28 | 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 702 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 512 AF — 73% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 887 | 10th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 165 | 6.0 |
| 2011 | 949 | 11th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 179 | 6.3 |
| 2012 | 394 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 135 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 348 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 151 | 3.1 |
| 2014 | 584 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 166 | 5.0 |
| 2015 | 718 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 184 | 4.7 |
| 2016 | 702 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 180 | 5.5 |
| 2017 | 999 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 182 | 6.7 |
| 2018 | 133 | 1st lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 65 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 1,074 | 14th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 206 | 7.3 |
| 2020 | 470 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 182 | 3.1 |
| 2021 | 314 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 192 | 2.5 |
| 2022 | 1,066 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 345 | 6.4 |
| 2023 | 1,432 | 15th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 356 | 6.9 |
| 2024 | 512 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 261 | 5.7 |
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 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7680 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 66% 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.