Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KEEP DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300662 · 1 · TURRET CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:36 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 1915-01-11 — 293rd 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: MCKINLAY DITCH (1914-05-30). Immediately behind: IRRAWADDY NO 2 DITCH (1915-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33023.23751 | 1915-01-11 | 1956-02-07 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 310 |
| 37482.0 | 1952-08-15 | 1956-02-07 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 381 |
| 56603.0 | 2004-12-21 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 5.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISFIRSTKAUG |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
04CW0246, CA1123.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04CW0246 | 3 | 2004-12-31 | S |
CA1123 | 7 | 1956-02-07 | 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 146 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 305 AF — 209% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 122 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 77 | 0.8 |
| 2007 | 105 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 83 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 109 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 111 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 126 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 128 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 84 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 55 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 146 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 50 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 119 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 41 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 400 | 14th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | 173 | 1.3 |
| 2016 | 370 | 12th lowest of 15 · 253% of median | 148 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 412 | 15th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | 147 | 1.6 |
| 2018 | 328 | 10th lowest of 15 · 225% of median | 128 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 394 | 13th lowest of 15 · 270% of median | 146 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | 365 | 11th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 165 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 126 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 44 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 305 | 9th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 99 | 1.6 |
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 | 5204 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 49% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.