Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NELSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300840 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 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 1897-04-01 — 990th 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: HILLSIDE DITCH (1897-04-01). Immediately behind: MEEKER BRIDGE DITCH (1897-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32172.17258 | 1897-04-01 | 1942-05-26 | 0.81 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | 375 |
| 32172.17637 | 1898-04-15 | 1942-05-26 | 1.23 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | 381 |
| 40935.0 | 1962-01-28 | 1966-11-21 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | 711 |
| 57708.57101 | 2006-05-03 | 2008-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISFIROTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
16CW3042, 08CW0042, 84CW0021, CA0624.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
16CW3042 | 1 | 2008-12-31 | S |
08CW0042 | 7 | 2008-12-31 | S |
84CW0021 | 1 | 1966-11-21 | S |
CA0624 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | 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 3,347 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,347 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 3,501 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 364 | 6.0 |
| 2012 | 3,075 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 366 | 6.0 |
| 2013 | 2,414 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 2,924 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 304 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 375 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 61 | 3.1 |
| 2016 | 3,110 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 366 | 6.0 |
| 2017 | 3,007 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 365 | 8.3 |
| 2018 | 4,896 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 365 | 9.8 |
| 2019 | 5,285 | 14th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 365 | 9.8 |
| 2020 | 4,721 | 12th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 366 | 7.4 |
| 2021 | 4,678 | 10th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 365 | 7.3 |
| 2022 | 4,691 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 304 | 9.6 |
| 2023 | 3,271 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 237 | 12.4 |
| 2024 | 6,585 | 15th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 319 | 19.9 |
| 2025 | 3,347 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 10.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9863 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 76% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.