Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DWINELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700601 · 1 · CANADIAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:50 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 1893-09-21 — 267th 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: BIG GRIZZLY DITCH ALT PT (1893-08-01). Immediately behind: MEDICINE BOW DITCH (1893-09-21).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15970.0 | 1893-09-21 | 1902-04-23 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 265(254) |
| 23016.22815 | 1912-06-19 | 1923-03-06 | 30.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 385 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3571, CA3944.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3571 | 1 | 1923-03-06 | S |
CA3944 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | 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 2,394 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 2,032 AF — 85% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2,394 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 52 | 34.6 |
| 2010 | 3,241 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 60 | 40.0 |
| 2012 | 1,884 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 79 | 20.0 |
| 2013 | 355 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 14 | 16.2 |
| 2014 | 779 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 56 | 12.0 |
| 2015 | 1,333 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 45 | 16.0 |
| 2016 | 1,571 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 68 | 17.8 |
| 2017 | 871 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 38 | 12.2 |
| 2018 | 3,633 | 11th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 68 | 32.0 |
| 2019 | 2,948 | 9th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 42 | 43.3 |
| 2020 | 4,283 | 12th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 79 | 55.5 |
| 2021 | 4,683 | 13th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 54 | 55.5 |
| 2022 | 5,513 | 14th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 62 | 63.7 |
| 2023 | 5,937 | 15th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 56 | 59.5 |
| 2024 | 2,032 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 82 | 12.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+311 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 3001 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2024 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.