Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STRINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300818 · 1 · TOPONAS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:47 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 1910-12-21 — 233rd 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: HOUSER DITCH (1906-04-06). Immediately behind: DARNELL DITCH (1913-07-09).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23958.22269 | 1910-12-21 | 1916-02-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
02/05/1916.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02/05/1916 | 1 | 1916-02-05 | 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 210 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 167 AF — 80% of that, and 5th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 201 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 47 | 3.5 |
| 2009 | 142 | 4th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 48 | 1.8 |
| 2010 | 602 | 15th lowest of 15 · 287% of median | — | 68 | 5.7 |
| 2011 | 250 | 9th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | — | 43 | 5.3 |
| 2012 | 109 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | — | 32 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 169 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 44 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 365 | 13th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | — | 102 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 258 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | — | 49 | 3.5 |
| 2018 | 254 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | — | 56 | 4.8 |
| 2019 | 455 | 14th lowest of 15 · 217% of median | — | 94 | 3.1 |
| 2020 | 325 | 12th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | — | 165 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 101 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | — | 153 | 1.0 |
| 2022 | 210 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 118 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 59 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | — | 23 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 167 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 67 | 3.0 |
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 | 3351 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% 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.