Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CARMINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900530 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:45 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1898-06-30 — 213th most senior of the 2360 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: JARVIS DITCH (1898-05-28). Immediately behind: CARMINE DITCH NEW LOC (1898-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17713.0 | 1898-06-30 | 1906-09-14 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 125 |
| 30667.17713 | 1898-06-30 | 1941-04-29 | 0.55 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 371 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2021, 98CW0117, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2021 | 1 | 1941-04-29 | S |
98CW0117 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA1325 | 1 | 1906-09-14 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 301 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 408 AF — 136% of that, and 12th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 303 | 8th lowest of 14 · 101% of median | 127 | 2.0 |
| 1989 | 299 | 6th lowest of 14 · 99% of median | 175 | 2.0 |
| 1991 | 319 | 9th lowest of 14 · 106% of median | 118 | 2.5 |
| 1992 | 94 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 31% of median | 20 | 2.5 |
| 1993 | 79 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 26% of median | 47 | 1.0 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 393 | 11th lowest of 14 · 131% of median | 65 | 4.0 |
| 1996 | 390 | 10th lowest of 14 · 130% of median | 60 | 4.8 |
| 1997 | 535 | 13th lowest of 14 · 178% of median | 89 | 3.5 |
| 1998 | 299 | 6th lowest of 14 · 99% of median | 145 | 2.7 |
| 1999 | 893 | 14th lowest of 14 · 297% of median | 154 | 6.4 |
| 2000 | 171 | 5th lowest of 14 · 57% of median | 86 | 2.7 |
| 2004 | 167 | 4th lowest of 14 · 56% of median | 35 | 2.6 |
| 2005 | 408 | 12th lowest of 14 · 136% of median | 88 | 4.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 1212 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1988-2005 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.