Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FOUR CREEK DITCH HGT 4
Structure dossier · WDID 5301049 · 1 · SWEETWATER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:06 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 1906-07-26 — 189th 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: FOUR CREEK DITCH HGT 3 (1906-07-26). Immediately behind: STEPHENS DITCH (1906-08-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20660.0 | 1906-07-26 | 1907-12-09 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
| 33023.30815 | 1934-05-15 | 1956-02-07 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 336 |
| 51134.44925 | 1972-12-31 | 1990-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRROTH |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
09CW0194, 91CW0257, CA1123, 95CW0185, 01CW0350.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0194 | 2 | 2009-12-31 | S |
91CW0257 | 2 | 1990-12-31 | S |
CA1123 | 1 | 1956-02-07 | S |
95CW0185 | 2 | 1956-02-07 | S |
01CW0350 | 1 | 1907-12-09 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 140 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2013, came in at 190 AF — 136% of that, and 10th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | 158 | 8th lowest of 13 · 113% of median | 105 | 1.0 |
| 1986 | 185 | 9th lowest of 13 · 132% of median | 149 | 1.1 |
| 1987 | 103 | 4th lowest of 13 · 74% of median | 74 | 1.0 |
| 1988 | 114 | 5th lowest of 13 · 81% of median | 138 | 0.5 |
| 1989 | 81 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 58% of median | 83 | 0.5 |
| 1990 | 432 | 12th lowest of 13 · 309% of median | 158 | 2.0 |
| 1991 | 443 | 13th lowest of 13 · 316% of median | 140 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 70 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 50% of median | 58 | 1.0 |
| 1994 | 198 | 11th lowest of 13 · 141% of median | 134 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 13 | 1st lowest of 13 · 9% of median | 20 | 0.8 |
| 2011 | 128 | 6th lowest of 13 · 91% of median | 41 | 1.9 |
| 2012 | 140 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 160 | 0.7 |
| 2013 | 190 | 10th lowest of 13 · 136% of median | 97 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 1357 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2013 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.