Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JENKINS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200581 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:20 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 1924-05-01 — 169th 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: ASHLOCK DITCH (HDG 2) (1923-07-16). Immediately behind: SHEEPHORN NO 2 DITCH HG2 (1929-06-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29437.27149 | 1924-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 172 |
| 33723.0 | 1942-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 0.95 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1038.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 2 | 1946-08-30 | 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 128 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 122 AF — 95% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | 123 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 32 | 2.0 |
| 1990 | 282 | 12th lowest of 15 · 220% of median | 90 | 2.0 |
| 1991 | 308 | 13th lowest of 15 · 241% of median | 172 | 2.5 |
| 1993 | 379 | 15th lowest of 15 · 296% of median | 116 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 53 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 20 | 1.4 |
| 2008 | 38 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 20 | 1.0 |
| 2009 | 128 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 44 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 16 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 11 | 0.8 |
| 2011 | 71 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 31 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 343 | 14th lowest of 15 · 268% of median | 75 | 2.9 |
| 2016 | 204 | 10th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 62 | 1.9 |
| 2017 | 148 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 52 | 2.0 |
| 2018 | 235 | 11th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 40 | 3.2 |
| 2019 | 122 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 36 | 2.1 |
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 | 1979 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 20% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2019 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.