Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WILMOT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200658 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1883-12-20 — 3rd 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: WHEELER DITCH (NEW) (1883-05-01). Immediately behind: OSAGE DITCH (1885-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12407.0 | 1883-12-20 | 1890-11-20 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 13825.0 | 1887-11-07 | 1890-11-20 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 29437.28258 | 1927-05-15 | 1946-08-30 | 10.88 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 173C |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1038, 11/20/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
11/20/1890 | 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 759 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 173 AF — 23% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,545 | 15th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 140 | 9.3 |
| 2010 | 991 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 91 | 12.0 |
| 2011 | 938 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 83 | 10.6 |
| 2012 | 140 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 69 | 1.8 |
| 2013 | 228 | 4th lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 59 | 3.2 |
| 2014 | 850 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 64 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 455 | 6th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 80 | 5.8 |
| 2016 | 1,106 | 14th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 62 | 9.2 |
| 2017 | 888 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 62 | 9.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 429 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 68 | 3.8 |
| 2020 | 718 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 59 | 8.0 |
| 2022 | 836 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 79 | 9.0 |
| 2023 | 759 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 9.0 |
| 2024 | 173 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 38 | 3.7 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5778 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.