Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PROSPECT CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000740 · 1 · SAN MIGUEL RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:11 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 1890-06-10 — 98th 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: BARRY NO2 DITCH (1889-10-31). Immediately behind: PROSPECT CREEK FLOWLINE (1890-06-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14771.0 | 1890-06-10 | 1911-06-03 | 5.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMDOMAUG | 37 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W1561, CA1627, 80CW0405.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1561 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | O |
CA1627 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | O |
80CW0405 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 78 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2000, came in at 352 AF — 451% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 69 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 93 | 0.5 |
| 1987 | 78 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 97 | 0.5 |
| 1988 | 50 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 73 | 0.5 |
| 1989 | 18 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 37 | 0.2 |
| 1990 | 131 | 9th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 134 | 0.5 |
| 1991 | 349 | 10th lowest of 15 · 447% of median | 128 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 854 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1095% of median | 159 | 4.0 |
| 1994 | 841 | 14th lowest of 15 · 1078% of median | 158 | 4.0 |
| 1995 | 71 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 133 | 0.3 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 1997 | 23 | 4th lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 51 | 0.2 |
| 1998 | 595 | 12th lowest of 15 · 763% of median | 144 | 3.0 |
| 1999 | 682 | 13th lowest of 15 · 874% of median | 140 | 3.5 |
| 2000 | 352 | 11th lowest of 15 · 451% of median | 113 | 3.5 |
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 (8/10 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 | 2288 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2000 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.