Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BURNETT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500535 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:01 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 1910-04-01 — 271st 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: MCBIRNEY SPRING PIPELINE (1900-05-01). Immediately behind: LARSON SPRING PIPELINE (1934-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33099.22005 | 1910-04-01 | 1941-07-23 | 1.472 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 44559.43889 | 1970-03-01 | 1972-12-31 | 0.0 | 15.0 | C | FIS |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0545, CA3395.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0545 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
CA3395 | 1 | 1941-07-23 | 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 440 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 305 AF — 69% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 737 | 14th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | — | 176 | 2.2 |
| 2001 | 688 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | — | 177 | 2.5 |
| 2002 | 418 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 170 | 1.5 |
| 2003 | 515 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | — | 176 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 410 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 124 | 2.1 |
| 2005 | 203 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | — | 108 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 440 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 160 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 304 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | — | 172 | 1.5 |
| 2008 | 539 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | — | 184 | 3.0 |
| 2009 | 893 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | — | 177 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 486 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 22 | 177 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 491 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 189 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 161 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | — | 82 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 425 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 169 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 305 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | — | 155 | 1.0 |
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 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6567 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2020 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.