Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UPPER FILLER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000818 · 1 · HORSEFLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1956-06-01 — 1358th 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: LLOYD FRONTAGE DITCH (1945-06-01). Immediately behind: KETTLE WASTEWATER DITCH (1960-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46020.38868 | 1956-06-01 | 1976-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISFIRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
05CW0201, W3400, 82CW0269, W2877, 79CW0011, 19CW3045.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0201 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
W3400 | 1 | 1978-12-31 | S |
82CW0269 | 1 | 1978-12-31 | S |
W2877 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
79CW0011 | 2 | 1976-12-31 | S |
19CW3045 | 2 | 1976-12-31 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 12 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 40 | 9th lowest of 13 · 333% of median | 16 | 2.0 |
| 1979 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 1980 | 14 | 8th lowest of 13 · 117% of median | 18 | 0.5 |
| 1981 | 5 | 6th lowest of 13 · 42% of median | 12 | 0.5 |
| 1982 | 50 | 11th lowest of 13 · 417% of median | 26 | 1.0 |
| 1983 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1984 | 48 | 10th lowest of 13 · 400% of median | 8 | 4.0 |
| 1985 | 51 | 12th lowest of 13 · 425% of median | 19 | 3.0 |
| 1986 | 12 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 29 | 0.2 |
| 1987 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2000 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 89 | 13th lowest of 13 · 742% of median | 19 | 2.5 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 13 · 0% of median | 7 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | fragment | 164 measured day(s) on file (under 180 -- a season, not a history) |
| record continuity | unknown | record too short to assess continuity (needs 2+ years of span and 180+ 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.