Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MABEL DOW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700743 · 1 · UTE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:46 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 1889-06-04 — 428th 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: SHORT RUN DITCH (1889-06-01). Immediately behind: HARD TO FIND DITCH (1893-06-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21366.144 | 1889-06-04 | 1913-01-06 | 11.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 173 |
| 30280.18793 | 1901-06-15 | 1939-06-20 | 23.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 702 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0286, CA2890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | S |
CA2890 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
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 879 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 196 AF — 22% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 1,767 | 14th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 120 | 15.0 |
| 2005 | 637 | 5th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 75 | 8.0 |
| 2006 | 660 | 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 91 | 8.0 |
| 2007 | 795 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 82 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 618 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 68 | 6.8 |
| 2009 | 1,421 | 12th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 53 | 20.2 |
| 2010 | 1,162 | 9th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 49 | 22.0 |
| 2012 | 314 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 57 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 1,248 | 10th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 38 | 17.0 |
| 2014 | 1,439 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 50 | 21.2 |
| 2015 | 1,869 | 15th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 56 | 20.3 |
| 2017 | 879 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 53 | 17.2 |
| 2018 | 471 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 53 | 4.6 |
| 2019 | 1,276 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 45 | 37.2 |
| 2025 | 196 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 37 | 2.8 |
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 | 2626 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.