Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DUQUETTE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800618 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1890-04-22 — 120th 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: DEER CREEK DITCH (1889-10-31). Immediately behind: HOGUE RES (1890-04-22).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14722.0 | 1890-04-22 | 1892-09-22 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOM | (80)90 |
| 33782.23892 | 1915-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 9.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOM | 313-C |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
12 court cases:
98CW0043, W0731-74, 81CW0174, W0077-71, CA2475, 90CW0044, 81CW0175, 09/30/1910, 90CW0007, 81CW0176 and 2 more below.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0043 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | S |
W0731-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
81CW0174 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
W0077-71 | 4 | 1946-09-14 | O, S |
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
90CW0044 | 1 | 1910-09-30 | S |
81CW0175 | 6 | 1910-09-30 | S |
09/30/1910 | 2 | 1910-09-30 | S |
90CW0007 | 1 | 1903-09-28 | S |
81CW0176 | 2 | 1903-09-28 | S |
09/28/1903 | 2 | 1903-09-28 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 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 320 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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 | 1,236 | 13th lowest of 15 · 386% of median | 266 | 8.0 |
| 2012 | 164 | 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 40 | 3.1 |
| 2013 | 1,977 | 15th lowest of 15 · 618% of median | 136 | 7.3 |
| 2014 | 293 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 44 | 3.4 |
| 2015 | 924 | 10th lowest of 15 · 289% of median | 137 | 4.6 |
| 2016 | 320 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 46 | 4.7 |
| 2017 | 227 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 82 | 2.8 |
| 2018 | 1,871 | 14th lowest of 15 · 585% of median | 98 | 15.5 |
| 2019 | 1,088 | 12th lowest of 15 · 340% of median | 47 | 15.5 |
| 2020 | 1,032 | 11th lowest of 15 · 322% of median | 100 | 5.9 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 702 | 9th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 73 | 8.5 |
| 2023 | 212 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 52 | 3.6 |
| 2024 | 48 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 84 | 0.3 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10361 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-2025 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.