Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JOHN S SUTTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700702 · 1 · JACK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:02 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 1892-09-19 — 257th 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: HAWORTH DITCH 1 (1892-09-19). Immediately behind: LAKE CREEK DITCH (1892-09-19).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15603.0 | 1892-09-19 | 1908-07-01 | 18.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 256 |
| 23016.22949 | 1912-10-31 | 1923-03-06 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 388 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3571, CA1783.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3571 | 1 | 1923-03-06 | S |
CA1783 | 1 | 1908-07-01 | 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 828 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,018 AF — 123% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,484 | 11th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 72 | 20.0 |
| 2012 | 107 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 8 | 18.0 |
| 2013 | 1,884 | 14th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 61 | 20.0 |
| 2014 | 1,596 | 12th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 51 | 17.0 |
| 2015 | 309 | 4th lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 65 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 828 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 32 | 13.9 |
| 2017 | 463 | 6th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 17 | 14.6 |
| 2018 | 14 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 3 | 7.2 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 449 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 20 | 11.9 |
| 2021 | 588 | 7th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 30 | 11.9 |
| 2022 | 1,629 | 13th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 58 | 15.0 |
| 2023 | 2,650 | 15th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 69 | 21.0 |
| 2024 | 1,325 | 10th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 45 | 20.0 |
| 2025 | 1,018 | 9th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 36 | 17.8 |
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 | 2855 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% 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.