Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EXCELSIOR DITCH 1
Structure dossier · WDID 5800629 · 1 · BURGESS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:02 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 1889-09-15 — 494th 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: FISH CREEK MSF-L (1910-05-14). Immediately behind: EXCELSIOR INDIAN PARTNERSHIP DITCH (1900-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22445.14503 | 1889-09-15 | 1911-06-16 | 0.4425 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISDOM | 83AA |
| 22445.22279 | 1910-12-31 | 1911-06-16 | 0.533 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISDOM | 189 |
Legal record & documents
20 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0959-76, 91CW0061, 06/16/1911, 01CW0117.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0959-76 | 7 | 1911-06-16 | S |
91CW0061 | 3 | 1911-06-16 | S |
06/16/1911 | 5 | 1911-06-16 | S |
01CW0117 | 5 | 1911-06-16 | 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 189 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1977, came in at 19 AF — 10% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1958 | 260 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 70 | 3.0 |
| 1959 | 356 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 86 | 3.3 |
| 1960 | 252 | 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 58 | 3.3 |
| 1961 | 195 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 48 | 3.3 |
| 1963 | 180 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 35 | 3.3 |
| 1965 | 232 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 40 | 3.3 |
| 1966 | 74 | 5th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 52 | 1.2 |
| 1967 | 66 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 18 | 3.3 |
| 1968 | 189 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 82 | 4.8 |
| 1969 | 225 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 61 | 4.6 |
| 1970 | 104 | 6th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 41 | 1.6 |
| 1971 | 379 | 15th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 111 | 2.3 |
| 1972 | 66 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 60 | 1.0 |
| 1974 | 53 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 58 | 0.5 |
| 1977 | 19 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 33 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-13 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.006).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2702 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-1977 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.