Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OLDLAND DITCH 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4300850 · 1 · PICEANCE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:21 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 1887-04-27 — 85th 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: O I SEE DITCH (1887-04-27). Immediately behind: BEARD & WATSON DITCH (1887-04-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13631.0 | 1887-04-27 | 1889-05-10 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 69 |
| 32172.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 2.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 467S |
| 54056.36889 | 1950-12-31 | 1998-12-31 | 6.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
98CW0267, CA0624, CA0133.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0267 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0133 | 1 | 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 470 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 440 AF — 94% of that, and 7th 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 | 1,406 | 15th lowest of 15 · 299% of median | 146 | 7.9 |
| 2012 | 470 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 109 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 209 | 6th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 103 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 1,113 | 13th lowest of 15 · 237% of median | 157 | 5.3 |
| 2015 | 945 | 11th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 169 | 5.4 |
| 2016 | 544 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 79 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 46 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 9 | 3.8 |
| 2018 | 152 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 40 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 954 | 12th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 169 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 143 | 4th lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 62 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 54 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 30 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 104 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 40 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 1,271 | 14th lowest of 15 · 270% of median | 86 | 8.5 |
| 2024 | 615 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 81 | 6.4 |
| 2025 | 440 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 84 | 3.6 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9202 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% 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.