Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOMESTEAD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700545 · 1 · TROUT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:44 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 1901-05-01 — 68th most senior of the 1003 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: SPRUCE HILL DITCH (1900-09-07). Immediately behind: RICH DITCH (1896-10-08).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18885.18748 | 1901-05-01 | 1902-09-15 | 4.66 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRINDFIRPWRALL | 67 |
| 19251.19236 | 1902-09-01 | 1903-09-21 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRINDFIRPWRALL | 74 |
| 25393.23101 | 1913-04-01 | 1920-06-29 | 4.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 98 |
| 39925.37529 | 1952-10-01 | 1962-11-15 | 5.55 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | A-23 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3081, CA1271, W1502-78, 09/21/1903, 09/15/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3081 | 1 | 1962-11-15 | S |
CA1271 | 1 | 1920-06-29 | S |
W1502-78 | 4 | 1903-09-21 | S |
09/21/1903 | 1 | 1903-09-21 | S |
09/15/1902 | 1 | 1902-09-15 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 714 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,091 AF — 153% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 714 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 37 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 1,035 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 161 | 5.7 |
| 2013 | 559 | 7th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 61 | 5.9 |
| 2014 | 555 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 53 | 5.5 |
| 2015 | 166 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 42 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 408 | 5th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 40 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 937 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 66 | 7.5 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 387 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 121 | 4.3 |
| 2020 | 889 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 112 | 11.5 |
| 2021 | 91 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 2022 | 1,064 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 124 | 13.0 |
| 2023 | 1,418 | 15th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 78 | 13.0 |
| 2024 | 1,101 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 68 | 10.0 |
| 2025 | 1,091 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 82 | 10.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7449 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2025 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.