Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COAL CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800532 · 1 · COAL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 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 1878-06-01 — 31st most senior of the 1293 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: BROWNYARD NO 3 DITCH (1878-05-15). Immediately behind: HANEY COAL CREEK DITCH (1878-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 3.322 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 31 |
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 47 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0508, W0388, CA0939, 05/15/1897.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0508 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
W0388 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA0939 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
05/15/1897 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | 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 770 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 533 AF — 69% of that, and 3rd 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 | 797 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 248 | 4.8 |
| 2012 | 512 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 347 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 576 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 345 | 3.3 |
| 2014 | 979 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 343 | 7.2 |
| 2015 | 1,687 | 15th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 365 | 9.6 |
| 2016 | 1,079 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 282 | 5.5 |
| 2017 | 1,015 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 285 | 4.8 |
| 2018 | 600 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 307 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 1,363 | 14th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 365 | 6.5 |
| 2020 | 539 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 297 | 1.7 |
| 2021 | 723 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 247 | 4.8 |
| 2022 | 770 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 333 | 2.3 |
| 2023 | 915 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 300 | 4.1 |
| 2024 | 453 | 1st lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 130 | 3.8 |
| 2025 | 533 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 173 | 3.8 |
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 | 10230 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 63% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.