Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHELTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700592 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1883-04-15 — 8th 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: BURBACK PUMPING PLANT (1883-04-15). Immediately behind: YOAST PUMPING PLANT (1883-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12158.0 | 1883-04-15 | 1892-09-22 | 6.69 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4 |
| 14183.0 | 1888-10-30 | 1892-09-22 | 20.07 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
| 34139.14183 | 1888-10-30 | 1948-07-12 | 26.76 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 180 |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3315, CA3025, 14CW3039, 07/12/1948, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3315 | 3 | 1948-07-12 | O, S |
CA3025 | 3 | 1948-07-12 | O, S |
14CW3039 | 6 | 1948-07-12 | O, S |
07/12/1948 | 1 | 1948-07-12 | S |
09/22/1892 | 2 | 1892-09-22 | 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 5,006 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 7,387 AF — 148% of that, and 14th 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 | 39 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 16 | 1.3 |
| 2012 | 6,806 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 279 | 38.6 |
| 2013 | 5,006 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 173 | 21.1 |
| 2014 | 3,419 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 171 | 23.2 |
| 2015 | 3,341 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 131 | 27.0 |
| 2016 | 4,864 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 165 | 44.6 |
| 2017 | 2,550 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 171 | 27.0 |
| 2018 | 3,685 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 150 | 26.1 |
| 2019 | 6,783 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 185 | 61.4 |
| 2020 | 6,342 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 146 | 48.2 |
| 2021 | 6,178 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 178 | 45.8 |
| 2022 | 5,197 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 182 | 33.0 |
| 2023 | 3,376 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 118 | 25.1 |
| 2024 | 9,275 | 15th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 162 | 42.9 |
| 2025 | 7,387 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 163 | 52.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 16073 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 82% 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.