Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOULTON AND BANTA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500528 · 1 · MAMM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:53 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1884-05-22 — 24th most senior of the 1378 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: MOUNTAIN SHEEP DITCH (1884-05-02). Immediately behind: BATTLEMENT DITCH (1884-06-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12561.0 | 1884-05-22 | 1888-05-05 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 24 |
| 13638.0 | 1887-05-04 | 1888-05-05 | 2.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79 |
| 21322.18398 | 1900-05-16 | 1908-05-19 | 2.23 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1285, CA0089, 05/05/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1285 | 1 | 1908-05-19 | S |
CA0089 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
05/05/1888 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | 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 227 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 508 AF — 224% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 132 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 60 | 2.7 |
| 1997 | 223 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 90 | 2.2 |
| 1998 | 143 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 20 | 4.0 |
| 1999 | 236 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 59 | 2.5 |
| 2000 | 194 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 54 | 3.6 |
| 2001 | 172 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 47 | 2.4 |
| 2002 | 68 | 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 113 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 78 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 227 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 94 | 2.6 |
| 2006 | 364 | 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 133 | 2.5 |
| 2007 | 539 | 15th lowest of 15 · 237% of median | 159 | 3.6 |
| 2009 | 358 | 11th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 56 | 4.0 |
| 2010 | 409 | 13th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 76 | 5.3 |
| 2014 | 265 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 94 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 508 | 14th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 130 | 3.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+16 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3053 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2016 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.