Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOWE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800696 · 1 · MIDDLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1898-10-27 — 246th 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 ELK RIVER D CO. D (1897-06-07). Immediately behind: BIG MESA DITCH (1900-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18898.17832 | 1898-10-27 | 1902-09-15 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 145 |
| 53279.0 | 1995-11-15 | 1995-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOMSNOWLD |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
95CW0146, 09CW0014, 09/20/1914, 09/15/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0146 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
09CW0014 | 2 | 1995-12-31 | S |
09/20/1914 | 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 39 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1971 | 134 | 14th lowest of 15 · 344% of median | 49 | 1.7 |
| 1972 | 105 | 12th lowest of 15 · 269% of median | 38 | 1.7 |
| 2001 | 14 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 64 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 39 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 0.4 |
| 2009 | 21 | 6th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 16 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 21 | 6th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 27 | 0.7 |
| 2011 | 104 | 11th lowest of 15 · 267% of median | 36 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 48 | 9th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 32 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 101 | 10th lowest of 15 · 259% of median | 45 | 1.7 |
| 2014 | 213 | 15th lowest of 15 · 546% of median | 72 | 1.7 |
| 2015 | 115 | 13th lowest of 15 · 295% of median | 37 | 1.7 |
| 2016 | 3 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 18 | 0.1 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 20 | 5th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 11 | 1.0 |
| 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 (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 | 14% 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.