Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PINTO CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5000631 · 1 · PINTO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1896-12-01 — 58th most senior of the 360 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: ROUND CREEK DITCH (1896-06-01). Immediately behind: CRAZY MANS DITCH (1897-05-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17137.0 | 1896-12-01 | 1906-08-11 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 59 |
| 21684.0 | 1909-05-15 | 1911-08-03 | 22.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 107 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0210, CA0113.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0210 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0113 | 1 | 1906-08-11 | 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 626 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 190 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 33 | 3.7 |
| 2005 | 585 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 68 | 9.2 |
| 2006 | 629 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 63 | 8.7 |
| 2007 | 655 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 93 | 7.3 |
| 2008 | 1,058 | 15th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 55 | 14.7 |
| 2009 | 703 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 56 | 8.7 |
| 2011 | 674 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 75 | 9.2 |
| 2012 | 225 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 57 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 391 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 58 | 4.6 |
| 2014 | 680 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 52 | 8.1 |
| 2015 | 626 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 7.1 |
| 2016 | 540 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 79 | 6.0 |
| 2017 | 769 | 14th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 78 | 7.0 |
| 2018 | 359 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 51 | 5.0 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2613 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2022 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.