Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SODA CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800868 · 1 · SODA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 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 1887-06-10 — 48th 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: GLEASON SODA CR TRANS (1887-06-10). Immediately behind: WOODCHUCK D SODA CK HG (1887-06-10).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13675.0 | 1887-06-10 | 1892-09-22 | 5.987 | 0.0 | C | IRRALL | (33)32 |
| 14129.0 | 1888-09-06 | 1892-09-22 | 0.33 | 0.0 | C | ALL | 55 |
| 18488.0 | 1900-08-14 | 1900-09-24 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMALL | 153 |
| 18872.0 | 1901-09-02 | 1901-09-16 | 5.33 | 0.0 | C | IRRALL | 161 |
| 35320.23892 | 1915-06-01 | 1953-03-09 | 9.32 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 367 |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA2613, W0799-75, 09/16/1901, 09/24/1900, CA0779, 09/22/1892, 04/13/1931.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2613 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | S |
W0799-75 | 7 | 1901-09-16 | O, S |
09/16/1901 | 1 | 1901-09-16 | S |
09/24/1900 | 1 | 1900-09-24 | S |
CA0779 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
04/13/1931 | 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 1,973 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,512 AF — 127% of that, and 14th 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 | 1,426 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 183 | 5.2 |
| 2012 | 1,945 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 366 | 10.2 |
| 2013 | 2,145 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 304 | 12.0 |
| 2014 | 2,328 | 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 231 | 10.2 |
| 2015 | 1,973 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 11.1 |
| 2016 | 1,797 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 239 | 10.1 |
| 2017 | 2,670 | 15th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 365 | 10.2 |
| 2018 | 1,829 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 304 | 10.2 |
| 2019 | 1,192 | 1st lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 166 | 4.7 |
| 2020 | 2,044 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 366 | 10.2 |
| 2021 | 1,652 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 365 | 10.6 |
| 2022 | 1,796 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 365 | 12.0 |
| 2023 | 2,144 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 365 | 11.5 |
| 2024 | 2,255 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 366 | 12.0 |
| 2025 | 2,512 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 304 | 11.2 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 22725 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.