Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

WHITE COTTON DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5301131 · 1 · TEPEE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 03:45 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 1928-09-30 — 568th 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: SATTERFIELD SPRING NO 6 (1926-06-30). Immediately behind: WHITE COTTON PIPELINE DIVERSION (1928-09-30).

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
44559.287621928-09-301972-12-31 2.00.0 CIRRSTK

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 57 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 78 AF — 137% of that, and 11th 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)
1997 103 13th lowest of 15 · 181% of median 105 0.5
1998 49 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median 50 0.5
1999 23 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median 24 0.5
2000 14 1st lowest of 15 · 25% of median 15 0.5
2003 60 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median 62 0.5
2004 19 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median 20 0.5
2005 22 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median 23 0.5
2006 29 5th lowest of 15 · 51% of median 30 0.5
2007 57 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 58 0.5
2008 51 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median 52 0.5
2009 94 12th lowest of 15 · 165% of median 55 1.0
2010 71 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median 118 0.5
2011 142 14th lowest of 15 · 249% of median 63 1.5
2015 203 15th lowest of 15 · 356% of median 106 1.6
2016 78 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median 77 0.6

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 1286 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 19% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2016 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.