Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DONELSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700591 · 1 · ROCK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 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 1885-05-04 — 42nd 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: NAIRN DITCH (1885-05-01). Immediately behind: MONROE DITCH (1885-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12908.0 | 1885-05-04 | 1892-09-19 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28(27) |
| 14730.0 | 1890-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 214(193) |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0922, 90CW0037.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0922 | 2 | 1892-09-19 | O |
90CW0037 | 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 535 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 197 AF — 37% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 794 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 181 | 5.8 |
| 2007 | 675 | 9th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 151 | 5.3 |
| 2008 | 1,148 | 15th lowest of 15 · 215% of median | 157 | 11.0 |
| 2009 | 789 | 11th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 150 | 8.0 |
| 2010 | 535 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 105 | 10.0 |
| 2011 | 490 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 29 | 11.0 |
| 2012 | 514 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 104 | 4.4 |
| 2013 | 712 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 72 | 8.0 |
| 2014 | 1,079 | 14th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 69 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 924 | 13th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 125 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 71 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 20 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 54 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 52 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | 149 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 26 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 197 | 5th lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 102 | 3.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-47 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 4261 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2021 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.