← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

COTTON SPRING DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5700688 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 02:15 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 1967-06-15307th 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: THOMPSON SPRING 7 (1958-08-01). Immediately behind: THOMPSON SPRING 3 (1967-07-01).

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
45290.428991967-06-151974-12-31 0.050.0 CIRRDOMSTK

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 6 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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)
1987 72 11th lowest of 15 · 1200% of median 175 0.3
1988 166 15th lowest of 15 · 2767% of median 168 0.5
1989 108 12th lowest of 15 · 1800% of median 220 0.9
1990 153 14th lowest of 15 · 2550% of median 295 0.9
1991 139 13th lowest of 15 · 2317% of median 304 0.6
1999 4 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median 61 0.0
2000 7 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median 122 0.0
2005 6 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 61 0.1
2006 34 10th lowest of 15 · 567% of median 304 0.1
2015 4 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median 41 0.1
2016 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 5 0.0
2017 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 5 0.0
2018 2 5th lowest of 15 · 33% of median 28 0.1
2019 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 5 0.0
2020 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 4 0.0

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 2195 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1976-2020 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.