Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DELTA PIPELINE
Structure dossier · WDID 4000945 · 7 · DIRTY GEORGE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1883-12-19 — 112th 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: MEYER & ORTH DITCH (1883-12-11). Immediately behind: WEST DITCH (1883-12-20).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12406.0 | 1883-12-19 | 1889-06-17 | 1.04 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | |
| 21263.12936 | 1885-06-01 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOMPWR | , A3 |
| 21263.19113 | 1902-05-01 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOMPWR | , A68 |
| 21459.0 | 1908-10-02 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOMPWR | , A104 |
| 21686.0 | 1909-05-17 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOMPWR | , A106 |
| 29260.2237 | 1911-04-01 | 1937-05-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOMPWR | , H82 |
Legal record & documents
22 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
W1691, 96CW0272, 81CW0291, W1687, CA0617, W1688, CA1037.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1691 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
96CW0272 | 10 | 1937-05-28 | S |
81CW0291 | 6 | 1937-05-28 | S |
W1687 | 2 | 1914-06-23 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | S |
W1688 | 1 | 1907-09-28 | S |
CA1037 | 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 810 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 981 AF — 121% of that, and 14th 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 | 916 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2011 | 622 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 206 | 3.8 |
| 2012 | 1,087 | 15th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 366 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 907 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 359 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 108 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 121 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 61 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 923 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 305 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 262 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 132 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 486 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 246 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 862 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 773 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 158 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 810 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 247 | 2.5 |
| 2022 | 951 | 13th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 298 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 386 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 130 | 2.5 |
| 2024 | 981 | 14th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 305 | 3.0 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11056 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.