Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPITZER HIGHLINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100906 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:00 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 1900-11-16 — 217th most senior of the 2208 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: BRINKER DITCH (1899-06-15). Immediately behind: BARKER NO 1 DITCH (1901-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20676.18582 | 1900-11-16 | 1911-08-03 | 4.79 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 216 |
| 30870.21336 | 1908-06-01 | 1937-11-05 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 387 |
| 31258.0 | 1935-08-01 | 1955-10-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 46020.36889 | 1950-12-31 | 1976-12-31 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W2995, 85CW0133, 88CW0382, CA0657, CA0183, 82CW0153.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2995 | 2 | 1976-12-31 | S |
85CW0133 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
88CW0382 | 1 | 1955-10-12 | O |
CA0657 | 3 | 1937-11-05 | S |
CA0183 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
82CW0153 | 3 | 1911-08-03 | 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 1,174 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 858 AF — 73% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,178 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 89 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 935 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 87 | 9.5 |
| 2012 | 1,471 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | — | 95 | 9.3 |
| 2013 | 1,086 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 79 | 7.3 |
| 2014 | 1,174 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 21 | 101 | 12.0 |
| 2015 | 1,039 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 20 | 90 | 10.3 |
| 2016 | 688 | 1st lowest of 15 · 59% of median | — | 66 | 8.0 |
| 2017 | 1,561 | 15th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | — | 103 | 9.3 |
| 2018 | 1,453 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | — | 95 | 13.8 |
| 2019 | 998 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | — | 85 | 8.5 |
| 2020 | 1,490 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | — | 107 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 1,246 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 111 | 7.5 |
| 2022 | 1,368 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | — | 115 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 712 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | — | 85 | 7.8 |
| 2024 | 858 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | — | 91 | 6.8 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3921 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-2024 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.