Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BURNETT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800568 · 1 · ELK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1887-09-01 — 235th most senior of the 3097 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: UPPER PLEASANT VALLEY DITCH (1887-05-21). Immediately behind: LEE IRRIGATION D (1888-06-14).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18898.13758 | 1887-09-01 | 1902-09-15 | 5.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 124 |
| 23545.22166 | 1910-09-09 | 1914-06-20 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 193 |
| 35672.0 | 1947-09-01 | 1953-03-09 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 389 |
| 48884.0 | 1983-11-03 | 1983-12-31 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
88CW0112, 83CW0152, CA2613, 06/20/1914, W0956-76, 09/15/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0112 | 1 | 1983-12-31 | S |
83CW0152 | 1 | 1983-12-31 | S |
CA2613 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | S |
06/20/1914 | 1 | 1914-06-20 | S |
W0956-76 | 2 | 1902-09-15 | 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 1,664 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,769 AF — 106% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,375 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 120 | 12.0 |
| 2012 | 882 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 149 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 1,811 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 141 | 9.3 |
| 2014 | 2,034 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 93 | 14.8 |
| 2015 | 3,407 | 15th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 123 | 16.3 |
| 2016 | 2,503 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 133 | 17.3 |
| 2017 | 1,761 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 168 | 14.8 |
| 2018 | 1,462 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 161 | 12.4 |
| 2019 | 181 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 11 | 9.1 |
| 2020 | 1,292 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 121 | 21.6 |
| 2021 | 2,315 | 13th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 228 | 23.1 |
| 2022 | 1,664 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 288 | 15.8 |
| 2023 | 1,088 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 171 | 14.5 |
| 2024 | 1,377 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 143 | 9.1 |
| 2025 | 1,769 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 158 | 18.6 |
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 (8/10 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 | 10361 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% of the irrigation seasons in 1918-2025 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.