Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HORSE MEADOWS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300632 · 1 · SWEETWATER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:11 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 — 174th 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: FOUR CREEK DITCH HGT 1 (1906-07-26). Immediately behind: FOUR CREEK DITCH HGT 5 (1906-07-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20660.0 | 1906-07-26 | 1907-12-09 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
| 22232.21654 | 1909-04-15 | 1913-11-10 | 0.0 | 2.8 | C | IRR | 233 |
| 26327.2351 | 1914-05-15 | 1926-06-16 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 267 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
91CW0257, 90CW0329, CA0819, CA0560, CA0466, 01CW0350.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
91CW0257 | 2 | 1990-12-31 | S |
90CW0329 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
CA0819 | 1 | 1926-06-16 | S |
CA0560 | 1 | 1913-11-10 | S |
CA0466 | 3 | 1907-12-09 | 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 470 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1994, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980 | 593 | 9th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 173 | 3.0 |
| 1981 | 930 | 12th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 145 | 4.5 |
| 1982 | 470 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 112 | 3.0 |
| 1983 | 628 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 134 | 4.4 |
| 1984 | 842 | 11th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 127 | 4.4 |
| 1985 | 970 | 13th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 182 | 4.4 |
| 1986 | 1,069 | 14th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 160 | 4.4 |
| 1987 | 461 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 76 | 4.4 |
| 1988 | 1,240 | 15th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 93 | 7.4 |
| 1989 | 294 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 107 | 1.4 |
| 1990 | 95 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 34 | 1.5 |
| 1991 | 108 | 4th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 56 | 1.5 |
| 1992 | 66 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 67 | 0.5 |
| 1993 | 391 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 58 | 3.5 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-47 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2352 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 48% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-1994 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.