Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PAXTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000733 · 1 · HORSEFLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:05 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 1958-10-02 — 978th most senior of the 2893 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: ALBIN WELL (1958-10-01). Immediately behind: PAXTON RESERVOIR (1958-10-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39721.0 | 1958-10-02 | 1967-01-16 | 27.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMSTK | 503 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
05CW0201, CA9042, 19CW3045.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0201 | 4 | 2005-12-31 | S |
CA9042 | 1 | 1967-01-16 | S |
19CW3045 | 2 | 1967-01-16 | 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 308 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, came in at 32 AF — 10% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 161 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 48 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 411 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 61 | 5.0 |
| 1993 | 1,821 | 14th lowest of 15 · 591% of median | 126 | 20.0 |
| 1994 | 1,515 | 13th lowest of 15 · 492% of median | 87 | 15.0 |
| 1995 | 268 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 93 | 2.5 |
| 1996 | 46 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 25 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 1,848 | 15th lowest of 15 · 600% of median | 87 | 18.0 |
| 1998 | 308 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 76 | 4.0 |
| 1999 | 159 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 52 | 2.5 |
| 2000 | 619 | 12th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 112 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 183 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 106 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 309 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 204 | 1.5 |
| 2008 | 394 | 10th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 49 | 13.6 |
| 2010 | 111 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 29 | 2.1 |
| 2011 | 32 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 23 | 0.7 |
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 | 1836 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2011 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.