Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CAPRON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700543 · 1 · PINKHAM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1880-06-21 — 2nd most senior of the 1262 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: BROCKER ENDOMILE DITCH (1880-05-15). Immediately behind: LITTLE GRIZZLY DITCH (1881-05-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11130.0 | 1880-06-21 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
| 13686.0 | 1887-06-21 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99(92) |
| 16222.0 | 1894-05-31 | 1901-05-17 | 3.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 271(259) |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1420, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1420 | 1 | 1901-05-17 | O |
CA0922 | 2 | 1892-09-19 | 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 1,141 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 268 AF — 24% of that, and 1st 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 | 722 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 61 | 7.8 |
| 2012 | 562 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 80 | 5.4 |
| 2013 | 840 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 59 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 635 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 59 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,349 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 86 | 11.1 |
| 2016 | 855 | 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 56 | 10.5 |
| 2017 | 1,823 | 13th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 112 | 20.3 |
| 2018 | 1,273 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 119 | 21.2 |
| 2019 | 3,523 | 15th lowest of 15 · 309% of median | 73 | 37.2 |
| 2020 | 1,564 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 58 | 20.3 |
| 2021 | 938 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 54 | 18.1 |
| 2022 | 1,812 | 12th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 75 | 18.1 |
| 2023 | 2,228 | 14th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 62 | 20.3 |
| 2024 | 1,141 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 39 | 15.1 |
| 2025 | 268 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 71 | 3.6 |
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 | 3691 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.