Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LITTLE COTTONWOOD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200589 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:53 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 1888-05-01 — 15th 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: NOTTINGHAM PUMP NO 2 (1888-04-15). Immediately behind: ASHLOCK DITCH (1888-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14001.0 | 1888-05-01 | 1890-11-20 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 14864.0 | 1890-09-11 | 1890-11-20 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 34 |
| 19790.1508 | 1891-04-15 | 1907-01-26 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 55 |
| 19790.19392 | 1903-02-04 | 1907-01-26 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 78 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0448, W2304.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0448 | 2 | 1907-01-26 | S |
W2304 | 2 | 1890-11-20 | 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 103 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 179 AF — 174% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 92 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 137 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 41 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 152 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 45 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 134 | 0.3 |
| 2009 | 70 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 170 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 103 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 186 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 169 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 183 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 189 | 15th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 187 | 1.2 |
| 2013 | 104 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 143 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 120 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 135 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 95 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 168 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 125 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 182 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 31 | 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 92 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 163 | 12th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 88 | 1.2 |
| 2020 | 47 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 59 | 0.8 |
| 2023 | 179 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 83 | 1.5 |
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 (8/10 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 | 6569 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2023 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.