Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAIR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200518 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:01 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 1890-04-01 — 28th 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: KUHN DITCH (1889-08-31). Immediately behind: GRAHAM DITCH (1890-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14701.0 | 1890-04-01 | 1890-11-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 26 |
| 29437.21674 | 1909-05-05 | 1946-08-30 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 145 |
| 29437.28975 | 1929-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 0.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 175 |
| 30771.0 | 1934-04-01 | 1946-08-30 | 2.23 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 184A, 184C |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1038, 19CW3027.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 2 | 1946-08-30 | S |
19CW3027 | 4 | 1946-08-30 | O, 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 126 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 24 AF — 19% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 182 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 67 | 1.4 |
| 2004 | 133 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 82 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 191 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 94 | 1.2 |
| 2006 | 126 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 100 | 0.6 |
| 2007 | 65 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 68 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 69 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 55 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 73 | 6th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 57 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 138 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 64 | 1.3 |
| 2011 | 196 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 65 | 1.6 |
| 2012 | 84 | 7th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 50 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 64 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 66 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 268 | 15th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 134 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 182 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 97 | 1.2 |
| 2018 | 10 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 80 | 0.1 |
| 2020 | 24 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 100 | 0.2 |
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 | 3399 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2020 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.