Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DOME RANCH DITCH HGT 1
Structure dossier · WDID 5301039 · 1 · NORTH FORK CEDAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:39 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 1890-07-08 — 104th 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: WILSON GULCH DITCH (1890-07-03). Immediately behind: KING DITCH (1890-07-08).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14799.0 | 1890-07-08 | 1890-11-20 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 126 |
| 33023.22141 | 1910-08-15 | 1956-02-07 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 290 |
| 37488.0 | 1952-08-21 | 1956-02-07 | 3.33 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 383 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1123, CA0295.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1123 | 2 | 1956-02-07 | S |
CA0295 | 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 125 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 350 AF — 280% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 72 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 74 | 0.5 |
| 2005 | 125 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 57 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 58 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 67 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 69 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 138 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 140 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 120 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 81 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 799 | 15th lowest of 15 · 639% of median | 99 | 4.1 |
| 2011 | 419 | 13th lowest of 15 · 335% of median | 53 | 4.6 |
| 2012 | 124 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 42 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 550 | 14th lowest of 15 · 440% of median | 72 | 5.1 |
| 2015 | 143 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 50 | 3.1 |
| 2016 | 208 | 11th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 80 | 2.3 |
| 2017 | 26 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 24 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 35 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 19 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 350 | 12th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | 55 | 5.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2305 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2019 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.