Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPAULDING DITCH HEADGATE ALTERNATE #3
Structure dossier · WDID 4300953 · 1 · PICEANCE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:29 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 1887-05-15 — 97th 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: SPAULDING DITCH (1887-05-15). Immediately behind: SPAULDING DITCH HEADGATE ALTERNATE #2 (1887-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13649.0 | 1887-05-15 | 1889-05-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
| 32172.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 467P |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
92CW0245.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
92CW0245 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | O, 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 85 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 85 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 43 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 384 | 14th lowest of 15 · 452% of median | 157 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 97 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 55 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 40 | 6th lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 44 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 240 | 11th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | 132 | 1.0 |
| 2009 | 421 | 15th lowest of 15 · 495% of median | 132 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 337 | 13th lowest of 15 · 396% of median | 121 | 3.5 |
| 2011 | 317 | 12th lowest of 15 · 373% of median | 73 | 2.4 |
| 2012 | 236 | 10th lowest of 15 · 278% of median | 67 | 1.8 |
| 2013 | 12 | 5th lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 14 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 62 | 7th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 7 | 5.2 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 10 | 4th lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 4 | 4.8 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-12 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.008).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 859 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 2004-2018 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.