Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THOMPSON SEEPAGE & WASTEWATER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5801428 · 1 · ELK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 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 1890-05-15 — 128th 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: MARTIN DITCH (1890-05-15). Immediately behind: FELIX BORGHI ALT PT NO 3 (1890-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14745.0 | 1890-05-15 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | (84)95 |
| 29573.15289 | 1891-11-10 | 1931-04-13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | 102AA |
| 45290.14745 | 1890-05-15 | 1974-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | |
| 51316.0 | 1990-07-01 | 1990-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISSTKOTH |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
98CW0013, 90CW0162, 21CW3008, W0751-74, W0750-74, W0754-74.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0013 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
90CW0162 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
21CW3008 | 2 | 1990-12-31 | S |
W0751-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
W0750-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
W0754-74 | 2 | 1931-04-13 | O, 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 580 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 759 AF — 131% of that, and 13th 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 | 24 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 2012 | 648 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 305 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 634 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 176 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 602 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 165 | 4.2 |
| 2015 | 345 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 153 | 2.7 |
| 2016 | 580 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 114 | 4.6 |
| 2017 | 514 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 226 | 5.7 |
| 2018 | 613 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 99 | 4.1 |
| 2019 | 391 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 117 | 2.4 |
| 2020 | 874 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 115 | 10.0 |
| 2021 | 1,212 | 15th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 117 | 10.0 |
| 2022 | 222 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 121 | 4.5 |
| 2023 | 334 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 45 | 8.9 |
| 2024 | 574 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 128 | 10.0 |
| 2025 | 759 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 98 | 7.8 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8019 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 79% of the irrigation seasons in 1978-2025 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.