Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MILL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200591 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:15 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 1901-06-30 — 69th 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: FLUME DITCH (1901-06-30). Immediately behind: TUNNEL DITCH (1901-09-15).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19790.18808 | 1901-06-30 | 1907-01-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 72 |
| 19790.19448 | 1903-04-01 | 1907-01-26 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79 |
| 29437.24227 | 1916-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 6.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 155 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1038, W2266, CA0448.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
W2266 | 1 | 1907-01-26 | 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 405 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 196 AF — 48% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 514 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 96 | 2.7 |
| 2006 | 303 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 65 | 2.4 |
| 2007 | 405 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 52 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 436 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 45 | 5.0 |
| 2009 | 481 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 64 | 3.8 |
| 2010 | 450 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 57 | 4.1 |
| 2011 | 454 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 80 | 2.9 |
| 2012 | 345 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 83 | 2.3 |
| 2013 | 558 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 67 | 4.3 |
| 2014 | 178 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 57 | 1.6 |
| 2015 | 281 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 80 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 371 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 57 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 649 | 15th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 60 | 6.6 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 196 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 59 | 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3252 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% 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.