Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OAKTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800808 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:50 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 1889-03-27 — 86th 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: JAMES WHEELER DITCH (1889-02-01). Immediately behind: SOUTH SIDE DITCH (1889-04-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14331.0 | 1889-03-27 | 1892-09-22 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (63)68 |
| 22177.14319 | 1889-03-15 | 1910-09-29 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 67A |
| 22177.19163 | 1902-06-20 | 1910-09-29 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 163A |
| 33782.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 8.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317E |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2475, 09/29/1910, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
09/29/1910 | 2 | 1910-09-29 | 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 846 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 852 AF — 101% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 601 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 31 | 12.1 |
| 2012 | 1,252 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 69 | 13.3 |
| 2013 | 1,107 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 55 | 13.6 |
| 2014 | 666 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 44 | 11.1 |
| 2015 | 798 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 37 | 12.0 |
| 2016 | 857 | 11th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 51 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 663 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 55 | 10.0 |
| 2018 | 1,327 | 15th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 89 | 14.1 |
| 2019 | 547 | 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 37 | 15.5 |
| 2020 | 765 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 66 | 10.7 |
| 2021 | 640 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 60 | 7.0 |
| 2022 | 939 | 12th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 73 | 10.7 |
| 2023 | 854 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 64 | 13.1 |
| 2024 | 846 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 12.5 |
| 2025 | 852 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 81 | 11.3 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6970 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.