Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FEUTZ AND SHORT WASTE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000984 · 1 · NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:30 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 1891-08-01 — 1238th 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: PAONIA FRUIT DITCH (1891-05-01). Immediately behind: H J NEIGHBORS DITCH (1891-11-29).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21263.15188 | 1891-08-01 | 1914-06-23 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A20 |
| 43829.15188 | 1891-08-01 | 1970-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0167, CA0617.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0167 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | 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 46 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 83 AF — 180% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 44 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 81 | 0.3 |
| 2002 | 23 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 70 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 25 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 62 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 43 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 75 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 46 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 77 | 0.5 |
| 2006 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 15 | 0.2 |
| 2007 | 55 | 9th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 109 | 0.3 |
| 2008 | 71 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 179 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 66 | 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 169 | 0.2 |
| 2010 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 109 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 131 | 0.3 |
| 2012 | 46 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 104 | 0.2 |
| 2014 | 76 | 14th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 159 | 0.3 |
| 2015 | 28 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 110 | 0.2 |
| 2016 | 83 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 168 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+3 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.022).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6130 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2016 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.