Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TIM MUGRAGE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200649 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1889-05-01 — 23rd 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: PRUETT NO 1 DITCH (1889-05-01). Immediately behind: HOG EYE DITCH (1889-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14366.0 | 1889-05-01 | 1890-11-20 | 1.32 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 21 |
| 19790.13254 | 1886-04-15 | 1907-01-26 | 1.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 48 |
| 29437.2348 | 1914-04-15 | 1946-08-30 | 2.58 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 151 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1038, CA0448, 92CW0205.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
CA0448 | 1 | 1907-01-26 | S |
92CW0205 | 1 | 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 499 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1997, came in at 6 AF — 1% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | 217 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 65 | 3.0 |
| 1978 | 1,291 | 14th lowest of 15 · 259% of median | 175 | 3.7 |
| 1979 | 1,164 | 13th lowest of 15 · 233% of median | 98 | 6.5 |
| 1980 | 1,291 | 14th lowest of 15 · 259% of median | 175 | 3.7 |
| 1982 | 502 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 69 | 3.7 |
| 1984 | 619 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 119 | 3.7 |
| 1985 | 535 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 139 | 3.4 |
| 1986 | 409 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 102 | 3.6 |
| 1987 | 264 | 5th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 94 | 1.4 |
| 1988 | 499 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 69 | 3.7 |
| 1989 | 499 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 69 | 3.7 |
| 1990 | 400 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 139 | 3.0 |
| 1991 | 12 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 6 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 2 | 3.0 |
| 1997 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 4 | 1.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-63 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 1552 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-1997 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.