Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JUNE CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500655 · 1 · JUNE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:10 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 1911-05-05 — 260th 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: WASTE WATER DITCH (1908-06-01). Immediately behind: EDDY PIPELINE (1919-04-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30170.22404 | 1911-05-05 | 1939-06-22 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 163 |
| 30170.22738 | 1912-04-03 | 1939-06-22 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 166C |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA3253.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3253 | 2 | 1939-06-22 | 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 101 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 147 AF — 146% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 62 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 15 | 2.4 |
| 1995 | 98 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 34 | 1.5 |
| 1996 | 150 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 45 | 2.2 |
| 1997 | 121 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 31 | 2.2 |
| 1998 | 85 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 56 | 0.9 |
| 1999 | 101 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 1.4 |
| 2000 | 54 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 37 | 0.8 |
| 2001 | 35 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 28 | 0.8 |
| 2003 | 94 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 43 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 52 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 20 | 1.5 |
| 2005 | 480 | 15th lowest of 15 · 475% of median | 72 | 4.5 |
| 2006 | 191 | 14th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 55 | 2.1 |
| 2007 | 163 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 55 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 107 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 38 | 1.5 |
| 2009 | 147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 50 | 2.0 |
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 (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 | 1118 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2009 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.