Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STILLWATER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5804685 · 1 · BEAR RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:53 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 1903-09-23 — 482nd 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: GARDNER PARK RESERVOIR (1902-10-07). Immediately behind: PETTIT DITCH (1903-04-22).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22071.19623 | 1903-09-23 | 1910-06-08 | 30.83 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 168A |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3538, 85CW0107, CA1083, CA0634, 84CW0071.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3538 | 1 | 1964-03-30 | S |
85CW0107 | 1 | 1964-03-30 | S |
CA1083 | 1 | 1910-06-08 | S |
CA0634 | 2 | 1910-06-08 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1910-06-08 | 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 6,054 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,461 AF — 90% of that, and 4th 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 | 6,608 | 13th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 123 | 47.3 |
| 2012 | 5,516 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 142 | 47.0 |
| 2013 | 4,272 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 132 | 42.5 |
| 2014 | 5,499 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 121 | 54.6 |
| 2015 | 5,991 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 120 | 57.0 |
| 2016 | 6,678 | 14th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 114 | 55.0 |
| 2017 | 6,810 | 15th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 116 | 67.9 |
| 2018 | 5,002 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 126 | 49.4 |
| 2019 | 6,091 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 118 | 58.6 |
| 2020 | 6,054 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 104 | 55.2 |
| 2021 | 3,205 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 95 | 42.1 |
| 2022 | 6,600 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 168 | 38.0 |
| 2023 | 6,495 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 130 | 42.1 |
| 2024 | 6,055 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 128 | 42.1 |
| 2025 | 5,461 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 135 | 46.2 |
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 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9619 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1909-2025 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.