Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PINE MESA DITCH, HEADGATE NO. 1
Structure dossier · WDID 6300552 · 1 · GILL 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 1891-04-01 — 180th most senior of the 533 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: HARMS AND HAZEL DITCH (1890-05-01). Immediately behind: FOY & TOMLINSON DITCH (1895-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30079.15066 | 1891-04-01 | 1939-02-11 | 5.72 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 32547.0 | 1939-02-10 | 1939-02-11 | 11.44 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4952, 12CW0083.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4952 | 2 | 1939-02-11 | S |
12CW0083 | 4 | 1939-02-11 | 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 203 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 155 AF — 76% of that, and 5th 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 | 103 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 68 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 229 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 64 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 187 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 47 | 2.8 |
| 2014 | 234 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 120 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 77 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 43 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 424 | 15th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 115 | 6.5 |
| 2017 | 353 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 103 | 3.4 |
| 2018 | 203 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 85 | 2.4 |
| 2019 | 346 | 13th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 91 | 4.8 |
| 2020 | 232 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 110 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 131 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 66 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 232 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 111 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 178 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 62 | 2.5 |
| 2024 | 130 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 61 | 1.8 |
| 2025 | 155 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 74 | 2.5 |
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 | 2910 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% of the irrigation seasons in 1995-2025 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.