Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
QUINLAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300761 · 1 · ROCK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:20 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 1902-05-26 — 138th 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: JOHANNBROER NO 2 DITCH (1903-09-15). Immediately behind: KAYSER DITCH (1902-11-22).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20314.19138 | 1902-05-26 | 1905-12-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 159 |
| 49308.40703 | 1961-06-10 | 1985-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
85CW0270, CA0443.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
85CW0270 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
CA0443 | 1 | 1905-12-05 | 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 635 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 584 AF — 92% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 635 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 116 | 4.3 |
| 2009 | 613 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 144 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 736 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 191 | 4.8 |
| 2011 | 789 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 147 | 4.5 |
| 2012 | 592 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 184 | 4.5 |
| 2013 | 565 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 156 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 683 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 189 | 4.0 |
| 2015 | 745 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 157 | 4.5 |
| 2016 | 749 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 239 | 3.4 |
| 2017 | 1,167 | 15th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 343 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 444 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 181 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 829 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 168 | 5.0 |
| 2020 | 355 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 122 | 3.0 |
| 2023 | 91 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 61 | 0.8 |
| 2024 | 584 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 295 | 1.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7328 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% 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.