Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LITTLE NELLIE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700730 · 1 · NORTH FORK NORTH PLATTE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:01 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 1886-04-30 — 73rd 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: LAWRENCE DITCH 2 (1886-04-26). Immediately behind: SOLDIERS HOME DITCH (1886-04-30).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13269.0 | 1886-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 26 |
| 13634.0 | 1887-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 14416.0 | 1889-06-20 | 1892-09-19 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99(89) |
| 14766.0 | 1890-06-05 | 1902-04-23 | 70.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1523, CA4185, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1523 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA4185 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | 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 4,713 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 2,887 AF — 61% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4,955 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 63 | 57.0 |
| 2006 | 5,603 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 91 | 60.0 |
| 2007 | 4,249 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 79 | 56.0 |
| 2008 | 4,456 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 56 | 65.0 |
| 2009 | 5,275 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 66 | 62.8 |
| 2010 | 3,106 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 38 | 68.0 |
| 2012 | 2,549 | 1st lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 82 | 37.3 |
| 2013 | 5,685 | 13th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 52 | 62.0 |
| 2014 | 4,172 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 49 | 65.4 |
| 2015 | 6,513 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 63 | 62.7 |
| 2016 | 3,350 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 35 | 56.3 |
| 2017 | 5,241 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 74 | 63.4 |
| 2018 | 6,479 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 58 | 64.7 |
| 2019 | 4,713 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 46 | 101.4 |
| 2024 | 2,887 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 53 | 28.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3202 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.