Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COTTONWOOD GULCH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500558 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:00 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 1886-05-15 — 51st 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: SPRING CREEK DITCH (1886-05-14). Immediately behind: WARD DOW & TAYLOR DITCH (1886-05-25).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13284.0 | 1886-05-15 | 1888-05-05 | 5.27 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 53 |
| 21366.19113 | 1902-05-01 | 1908-11-09 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 125A |
| 24241.23579 | 1914-07-23 | 1916-06-06 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 147B |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA1870, CA1241, CA1946, CA0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1870 | 1 | 1916-06-06 | S |
CA1241 | 1 | 1908-11-09 | S |
CA1946 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
CA0089 | 3 | 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 209 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 353 AF — 169% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 238 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 100 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 700 | 14th lowest of 15 · 335% of median | 90 | 12.6 |
| 2012 | 109 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 51 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 135 | 6th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 51 | 4.2 |
| 2014 | 270 | 11th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 63 | 4.2 |
| 2015 | 87 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 50 | 2.9 |
| 2016 | 209 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 74 | 4.1 |
| 2017 | 178 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 97 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 69 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 31 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 408 | 13th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 99 | 11.1 |
| 2020 | 60 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 37 | 2.2 |
| 2021 | 104 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 49 | 2.8 |
| 2022 | 219 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 71 | 4.8 |
| 2023 | 980 | 15th lowest of 15 · 469% of median | 88 | 18.0 |
| 2024 | 353 | 12th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 90 | 5.5 |
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 (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 | 3916 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.