Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SUNNYSIDE ROBERTS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300822 · 1 · SUNNYSIDE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:55 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 1884-11-04 — 18th 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: LITTLE DRY GULCH DITCH (1884-09-01). Immediately behind: MERRIMAN DITCH (1885-03-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12727.0 | 1884-11-04 | 1890-11-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 14816.0 | 1890-07-25 | 1890-11-20 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 138A |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0295.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0295 | 3 | 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 264 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 103 AF — 39% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 131 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 59 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 113 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 58 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 100 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 55 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 291 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 81 | 2.0 |
| 2004 | 329 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 104 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 371 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 115 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 411 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 115 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 384 | 12th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 111 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 386 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 140 | 2.0 |
| 2009 | 264 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 147 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 174 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 101 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 423 | 15th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 102 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 149 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 59 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 202 | 7th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 57 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 103 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 93 | 1.2 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2709 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2016 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.