Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

WURTSMITH SPRING DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5300888 · 1 · DERBY CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:12 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 1932-06-10 — 309th 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: SHERWOOD DITCH (1932-06-10). Immediately behind: RESERVOIR FEEDER DITCH (1934-09-15).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
33023.301111932-06-101956-02-07 4.50.0 CIRRDOM 333

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 198 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2013, came in at 200 AF — 101% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1999 229 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median 85 1.7
2000 183 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median 72 1.3
2001 104 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median 45 1.2
2002 157 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median 55 1.5
2003 314 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median 117 1.7
2004 198 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 69 1.5
2005 106 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median 46 1.2
2006 147 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median 58 1.3
2007 161 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median 69 1.2
2008 219 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median 76 1.5
2009 206 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median 82 1.4
2010 263 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median 108 1.2
2011 296 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median 107 1.5
2012 185 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median 82 1.5
2013 200 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median 79 1.7

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 3937 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 48% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2013 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.