Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VEO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6200783 · 1 · CIMARRON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:33 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 1883-09-01 — 38th most senior of the 1980 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: LAKE FORK NO 1 DITCH (1883-09-01). Immediately behind: MOORE DITCH ALT PT (1883-09-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12297.0 | 1883-09-01 | 1904-03-28 | 8.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 45 |
| 27585.22523 | 1911-09-01 | 1941-04-21 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 283 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4742, CA1319.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4742 | 1 | 1941-04-21 | S |
CA1319 | 1 | 1904-03-28 | 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 3,131 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,788 AF — 89% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,519 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 165 | 14.9 |
| 2012 | 3,730 | 15th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 166 | 14.7 |
| 2013 | 3,135 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 156 | 16.0 |
| 2014 | 2,972 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 135 | 17.7 |
| 2015 | 3,131 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 141 | 18.4 |
| 2016 | 2,492 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 147 | 16.4 |
| 2017 | 2,552 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 146 | 16.0 |
| 2018 | 3,230 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 174 | 16.0 |
| 2019 | 2,276 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 128 | 15.1 |
| 2020 | 3,253 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 161 | 16.8 |
| 2021 | 3,580 | 14th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 181 | 13.9 |
| 2022 | 2,030 | 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 120 | 16.0 |
| 2023 | 3,357 | 13th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 169 | 16.6 |
| 2024 | 3,327 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 166 | 13.9 |
| 2025 | 2,788 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 163 | 13.5 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7546 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 68% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2025 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.