Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SUNKI NO 3 DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5900688 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 01:23 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 1900-05-20 — 229th 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: SLATE RIVER, BREEM DITCH ISF SEGMENT 2 (1900-05-12). Immediately behind: A C JARVIS NO 1 DITCH (1900-06-19).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
18402.01900-05-201906-09-14 0.50.0 CIRR 137

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 85 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 58 AF — 68% of that, and 6th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 173 12th lowest of 15 · 204% of median 90 1.2
2012 90 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 45 1.2
2013 222 13th lowest of 15 · 261% of median 154 1.5
2014 85 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 90 1.1
2015 39 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median 66 0.5
2016 318 15th lowest of 15 · 374% of median 157 3.6
2017 128 11th lowest of 15 · 151% of median 89 1.6
2018 6 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median 35 0.1
2019 37 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median 66 0.4
2020 73 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median 122 0.4
2021 104 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median 135 0.6
2022 32 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median 31 0.6
2023 270 14th lowest of 15 · 318% of median 82 4.5
2024 57 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median 69 0.6
2025 58 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median 81 0.4

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2910 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1979-2025 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.