Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
A P R NO 4 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200511 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:54 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 1902-06-01 — 72nd most senior of the 562 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: GUTZLER RES AND LAKE D (1901-10-10). Immediately behind: WEST COTTONWOOD DITCH (1902-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19790.19144 | 1902-06-01 | 1907-01-26 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 46386.44712 | 1972-06-01 | 1977-12-31 | 1.61 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W3336, CA0448.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3336 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
CA0448 | 1 | 1907-01-26 | 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 176 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1994, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1979 | 73 | 4th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 40 | 1.0 |
| 1980 | 436 | 12th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 160 | 2.6 |
| 1981 | 164 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 42 | 2.6 |
| 1982 | 219 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 52 | 2.6 |
| 1983 | 618 | 15th lowest of 15 · 351% of median | 135 | 2.6 |
| 1984 | 479 | 13th lowest of 15 · 272% of median | 119 | 2.6 |
| 1985 | 483 | 14th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | 110 | 2.5 |
| 1986 | 352 | 10th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 140 | 1.8 |
| 1987 | 143 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 97 | 0.8 |
| 1988 | 60 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 53 | 1.0 |
| 1989 | 61 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 55 | 1.0 |
| 1990 | 158 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 109 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 176 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 153 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 434 | 11th lowest of 15 · 247% of median | 116 | 2.6 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 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 | 1617 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-1994 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.