Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DEEP CUT IRRIGATING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4400589 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1884-05-13 — 14th most senior of the 3562 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: CRAIG WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM (1884-05-13). Immediately behind: CRAIG WATER TREATMENT PL (1884-05-13).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12552.0 | 1884-05-13 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 8 |
| 12754.0 | 1884-12-01 | 1892-09-22 | 28.58 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 11 |
| 14700.0 | 1890-03-31 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 49 |
| 36295.24105 | 1915-12-31 | 1960-09-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOM | 34 |
| 45655.12754 | 1884-12-01 | 1975-12-31 | 5.79 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 46386.46151 | 1976-05-10 | 1977-12-31 | 34.37 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDDOM |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W1139-77, 21CW3048, W0877-75, 81CW0035, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1139-77 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
21CW3048 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
W0877-75 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | S |
81CW0035 | 3 | 1960-09-01 | O, S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 6,493 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 9,282 AF — 143% of that, and 15th 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 | 4,523 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 356 | 33.4 |
| 2012 | 6,574 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 365 | 47.0 |
| 2013 | 9,203 | 14th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 365 | 48.8 |
| 2014 | 6,687 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 365 | 40.0 |
| 2015 | 7,657 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 365 | 24.1 |
| 2016 | 5,870 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 297 | 22.4 |
| 2017 | 4,209 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 107 | 35.7 |
| 2018 | 4,574 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 101 | 28.0 |
| 2019 | 4,052 | 1st lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 137 | 30.0 |
| 2020 | 5,232 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 146 | 31.0 |
| 2021 | 6,493 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 181 | 68.1 |
| 2022 | 8,488 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 215 | 37.3 |
| 2023 | 5,969 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 211 | 32.0 |
| 2024 | 8,189 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 205 | 44.4 |
| 2025 | 9,282 | 15th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 197 | 42.9 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14035 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.