Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COZENS DITCH EXTENSION
Structure dossier · WDID 5101045 · 1 · LELAND CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1999-12-23 — 1760th 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: NQGP WELLS DEPLETION REACH (1999-12-14). Immediately behind: MR-1 RESERVOIR (1999-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54778.0 | 1999-12-23 | 1999-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDFIRDOMSTKOTH |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
99CW0314, W0462, 86CW0258.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0314 | 2 | 1999-12-31 | S |
W0462 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
86CW0258 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | 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 88 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 89 AF — 101% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 54 | 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 28 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 14 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 17 | 0.5 |
| 1992 | 75 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 69 | 0.9 |
| 1993 | 50 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 51 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 413 | 13th lowest of 15 · 469% of median | 184 | 5.0 |
| 2010 | 430 | 14th lowest of 15 · 489% of median | 190 | 5.0 |
| 2011 | 402 | 12th lowest of 15 · 457% of median | 164 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 12 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 36 | 0.2 |
| 2013 | 386 | 11th lowest of 15 · 439% of median | 64 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 441 | 15th lowest of 15 · 501% of median | 108 | 6.5 |
| 2015 | 343 | 10th lowest of 15 · 390% of median | 117 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 35 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 28 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 53 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 92 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 88 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 119 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 89 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 69 | 1.8 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1629 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2024 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.