Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FOUR CREEK DITCH HGT 1
Structure dossier · WDID 5300577 · 1 · SWEETWATER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1906-07-26 — 173rd most senior of the 1231 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: PURGATORY DITCH (1905-09-01). Immediately behind: HORSE MEADOWS DITCH (1906-07-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20660.0 | 1906-07-26 | 1907-12-09 | 5.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
| 33023.30815 | 1934-05-15 | 1956-02-07 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 336 |
| 37080.0 | 1951-07-10 | 1956-02-07 | 4.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 369 |
| 51134.44925 | 1972-12-31 | 1990-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRROTH |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
09CW0194, 91CW0257, CA1123, 06CW0070, 01CW0350.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0194 | 2 | 2009-12-31 | S |
91CW0257 | 2 | 1990-12-31 | S |
CA1123 | 3 | 1956-02-07 | S |
06CW0070 | 1 | 1956-02-07 | S |
01CW0350 | 1 | 1907-12-09 | 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 463 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 1,099 AF — 237% of that, and 15th 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 | 575 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 139 | 3.4 |
| 2006 | 463 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 77 | 3.3 |
| 2007 | 345 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 83 | 2.4 |
| 2008 | 295 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 92 | 1.9 |
| 2009 | 438 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 118 | 2.4 |
| 2010 | 261 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 143 | 1.3 |
| 2011 | 341 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 141 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 145 | 1st lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 140 | 0.7 |
| 2013 | 162 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 66 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 481 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 111 | 3.1 |
| 2015 | 910 | 14th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 173 | 3.9 |
| 2016 | 740 | 13th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 173 | 2.9 |
| 2017 | 525 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 191 | 2.6 |
| 2018 | 531 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 154 | 4.5 |
| 2020 | 1,099 | 15th lowest of 15 · 237% of median | 165 | 5.7 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5524 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2020 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.