Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SEEPAGE FEEDER DITCH NO1
Structure dossier · WDID 4100524 · 1 · UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:44 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 1911-09-02 — 108th most senior of the 1104 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 PARK DITCH (1911-09-02). Immediately behind: J. C. FREES PRIVATE DITCH (1911-09-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24221.22524 | 1911-09-02 | 1929-07-03 | 9.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 137, 151 |
| 29038.14093 | 1888-08-01 | 1941-12-04 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 170 |
| 29038.22524 | 1911-09-02 | 1941-12-04 | 7.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 187 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4573, 01CW0132, CA3728.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4573 | 2 | 1941-12-04 | S |
01CW0132 | 8 | 1941-12-04 | S |
CA3728 | 2 | 1929-07-03 | 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 2,607 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,550 AF — 136% of that, and 14th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,040 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 94 | 12.0 |
| 2012 | 3,341 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 172 | 16.0 |
| 2013 | 2,942 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | — | 181 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 2,844 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 171 | 14.0 |
| 2015 | 2,449 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 164 | 14.0 |
| 2016 | 4,320 | 15th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | — | 187 | 16.0 |
| 2017 | 479 | 5th lowest of 15 · 18% of median | — | 111 | 3.5 |
| 2018 | 268 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 2,119 | 18 | 16.9 |
| 2019 | 286 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 2,353 | 14 | 19.5 |
| 2020 | 270 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 2,311 | 14 | 17.7 |
| 2021 | 345 | 4th lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 856 | 14 | 29.9 |
| 2022 | 3,415 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 1,544 | 164 | 14.3 |
| 2023 | 3,445 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 958 | 199 | 14.4 |
| 2024 | 2,607 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 1,855 | 186 | 12.1 |
| 2025 | 3,550 | 14th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 1,022 | 154 | 15.4 |
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 | 14621 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.