Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OAK KNOLL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300746 · 1 · ANTELOPE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:36 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 1887-07-01 — 63rd 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: N G DITCH (1887-06-15). Immediately behind: SPRING DITCH (1887-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13696.0 | 1887-07-01 | 1890-11-20 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65 |
| 14365.0 | 1889-04-30 | 1890-11-20 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 95 |
| 14812.0 | 1890-07-21 | 1890-11-20 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 133 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0295, 91CW0092.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0295 | 3 | 1890-11-20 | O |
91CW0092 | 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 42 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 81 AF — 193% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 95 | 12th lowest of 15 · 226% of median | 60 | 0.9 |
| 1998 | 29 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 63 | 0.3 |
| 1999 | 39 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 33 | 0.6 |
| 2000 | 67 | 9th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 35 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 42 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 43 | 0.5 |
| 2002 | 10 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 50 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 134 | 14th lowest of 15 · 319% of median | 61 | 1.2 |
| 2004 | 13 | 4th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 65 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 243 | 15th lowest of 15 · 579% of median | 103 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 121 | 13th lowest of 15 · 288% of median | 96 | 1.2 |
| 2017 | 76 | 10th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 121 | 0.4 |
| 2018 | 10 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 26 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 30 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 76 | 0.2 |
| 2024 | 81 | 11th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 55 | 0.8 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2481 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% 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.