Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WESTMAN NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100952 · 1 · TENMILE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1887-05-31 — 57th 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: BYERS DITCH NO 3 (1886-06-15). Immediately behind: UTE BILL NO 2 DITCH (1887-06-02).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13665.0 | 1887-05-31 | 1906-08-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 49 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
83CW0334, 21CW3151, W1881, CA0112.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
83CW0334 | 1 | 1983-12-31 | S |
21CW3151 | 1 | 1983-12-31 | S |
W1881 | 2 | 1906-08-11 | O |
CA0112 | 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 202 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2000, came in at 28 AF — 14% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976 | 214 | 8th lowest of 14 · 106% of median | — | 82 | 1.5 |
| 1978 | 323 | 12th lowest of 14 · 160% of median | — | 54 | 3.4 |
| 1979 | 332 | 13th lowest of 14 · 164% of median | — | 59 | 3.3 |
| 1980 | 271 | 10th lowest of 14 · 134% of median | — | 58 | 3.0 |
| 1981 | 279 | 11th lowest of 14 · 138% of median | — | 89 | 2.0 |
| 1984 | 121 | 5th lowest of 14 · 60% of median | — | 61 | 1.0 |
| 1985 | 1,027 | 14th lowest of 14 · 508% of median | — | 304 | 2.0 |
| 1986 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1987 | 246 | 9th lowest of 14 · 122% of median | — | 184 | 1.0 |
| 1989 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1990 | — | no recorded volume | 175 | 0 | — |
| 1997 | 181 | 6th lowest of 14 · 90% of median | — | 184 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 71 | 4th lowest of 14 · 35% of median | — | 37 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 190 | 7th lowest of 14 · 94% of median | — | 97 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 28 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 14% of median | — | 29 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1313 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2000 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.