Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
M H M GERMAN CONS D
Structure dossier · WDID 4300782 · 1 · PICEANCE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:42 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1884-05-10 — 15th most senior of the 3293 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: HOME DITCH (1884-05-10). Immediately behind: RYAN DITCH (1884-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12549.0 | 1884-05-10 | 1890-10-22 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDDOMAUG | 12A |
| 13622.0 | 1887-04-18 | 1889-05-10 | 4.67 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDDOMAUG | 68 |
| 14329.0 | 1889-03-25 | 1889-05-10 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDDOMAUG | 109 |
| 32172.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 9.77 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDDOMAUG | 467Z11, 46 |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0624, 98CW0259, 10/22/1890, CA0133.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | S |
98CW0259 | 10 | 1942-05-26 | O, S |
10/22/1890 | 1 | 1890-10-22 | O |
CA0133 | 2 | 1889-05-10 | 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 483 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 279 AF — 58% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 483 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 149 | 2.1 |
| 2011 | 1,287 | 14th lowest of 15 · 266% of median | — | 86 | 16.0 |
| 2013 | 445 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 169 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 2,286 | 15th lowest of 15 · 473% of median | — | 135 | 8.6 |
| 2015 | 806 | 11th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | — | 120 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 796 | 10th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | — | 78 | 6.2 |
| 2017 | 6 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 1% of median | — | 6 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 284 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | — | 123 | 2.6 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 389 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 139 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 275 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | — | 132 | 2.6 |
| 2022 | 651 | 9th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 160 | 3.4 |
| 2023 | 860 | 12th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | — | 143 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 877 | 13th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | — | 96 | 7.2 |
| 2025 | 279 | 4th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | — | 113 | 1.9 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7943 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 50% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2025 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.