Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STELLA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700899 · 1 · ILLINOIS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1887-04-30 — 105th 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: LEONARD DITCH (1887-04-30). Immediately behind: DARLING DITCH (1887-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13634.0 | 1887-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76(74) |
| 13635.0 | 1887-05-01 | 1902-04-23 | 5.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 82 |
| 30280.14154 | 1888-10-01 | 1939-06-20 | 14.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 655 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0286, CA1519, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | S |
CA1519 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 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 1,021 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,621 | 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 61 | 20.6 |
| 2011 | 2,029 | 15th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 49 | 25.0 |
| 2012 | 1,165 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 67 | 13.8 |
| 2013 | 1,446 | 13th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 51 | 20.0 |
| 2014 | 1,410 | 12th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 42 | 20.0 |
| 2015 | 1,021 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 10.3 |
| 2016 | 1,400 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 56 | 16.0 |
| 2017 | 838 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 60 | 11.4 |
| 2018 | 622 | 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 35 | 9.5 |
| 2019 | 279 | 4th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 26 | 5.6 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 1,035 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 56 | 12.7 |
| 2023 | 48 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 50 | 0.5 |
| 2024 | 569 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 50 | 6.7 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-120 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2840 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.