Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WHEELER DITCH (NEW)
Structure dossier · WDID 5200675 · 1 · HENRY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:17 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 1883-05-01 — 2nd 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: MCCOY NO 1 DITCH (1883-05-01). Immediately behind: WILMOT DITCH (1883-12-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12174.0 | 1883-05-01 | 1890-11-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 14865.0 | 1890-09-12 | 1890-11-20 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 29437.18383 | 1900-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 4.54 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 29437.18517 | 1900-09-12 | 1946-08-30 | 2.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
79CW0366, 79CW0138.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
79CW0366 | 2 | 1946-08-30 | O, S |
79CW0138 | 2 | 1946-08-30 | O, 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 301 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 325 AF — 108% of that, and 10th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 262 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 79 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 371 | 13th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | — | 92 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 329 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 88 | 2.7 |
| 2012 | 159 | 6th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | — | 83 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 301 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 78 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 384 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 118 | 2.3 |
| 2016 | 95 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | — | 56 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 63 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | — | 32 | 1.2 |
| 2018 | 107 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | — | 73 | 1.1 |
| 2019 | 301 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 103 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 91 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | — | 33 | 1.4 |
| 2021 | 143 | 5th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | — | 49 | 1.5 |
| 2022 | 337 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 108 | 6.9 |
| 2023 | 409 | 15th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | — | 61 | 6.4 |
| 2024 | 325 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 77 | 3.2 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2045 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1984-2024 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.