Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OAK PARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000813 · 1 · CURRANT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1900-03-23 — 1211th 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: GALLANT DITCH (1897-12-02). Immediately behind: MIDWAY DITCH (1903-07-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21089.18344 | 1900-03-23 | 1908-03-20 | 1.62 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
| 25807.21275 | 1908-04-01 | 1930-02-10 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G54 |
| 49308.35063 | 1945-12-31 | 1985-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
85CW0111, CA2030, CA0584.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
85CW0111 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
CA2030 | 1 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA0584 | 1 | 1908-03-20 | 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 646 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 528 AF — 82% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 646 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 133 | 7.5 |
| 1993 | 1,043 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 159 | 5.0 |
| 1994 | 679 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 156 | 5.2 |
| 1995 | 808 | 11th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 162 | 6.0 |
| 1996 | 442 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 107 | 4.5 |
| 1997 | 458 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 102 | 5.0 |
| 1998 | 409 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 61 | 6.5 |
| 1999 | 906 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 163 | 6.8 |
| 2000 | 603 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 122 | 5.1 |
| 2001 | 848 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 151 | 8.2 |
| 2002 | 103 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 115 | 4.2 |
| 2003 | 669 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 152 | 7.3 |
| 2004 | 572 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 196 | 7.2 |
| 2005 | 1,142 | 15th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 149 | 6.0 |
| 2006 | 528 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 87 | 6.3 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4943 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2006 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.