Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MERRIMAC DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300701 · 1 · SUNNYSIDE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 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 1885-06-21 — 25th 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: RASPBERRY GULCH DITCH (1885-05-15). Immediately behind: BAXTER DITCH (1885-06-29).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12956.0 | 1885-06-21 | 1890-11-20 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 24 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0876, CA0295, 81CW0295.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0876 | 2 | 1890-11-20 | O |
CA0295 | 1 | 1890-11-20 | O |
81CW0295 | 1 | 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 341 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 544 AF — 160% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 1,227 | 15th lowest of 15 · 360% of median | 143 | 7.0 |
| 1979 | 856 | 12th lowest of 15 · 251% of median | 159 | 7.0 |
| 1980 | 1,108 | 14th lowest of 15 · 325% of median | 171 | 7.0 |
| 1981 | 341 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 88 | 3.0 |
| 1982 | 1,075 | 13th lowest of 15 · 315% of median | 161 | 7.0 |
| 2005 | 204 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 85 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 186 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 73 | 1.3 |
| 2007 | 99 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 77 | 0.8 |
| 2008 | 139 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 55 | 1.3 |
| 2009 | 208 | 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 80 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 374 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 133 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 330 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 189 | 2.3 |
| 2017 | 624 | 11th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 136 | 6.0 |
| 2018 | 99 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 67 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 544 | 10th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 130 | 4.3 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2154 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2019 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.