Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DALLAS PLACER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800545 · 1 · DALLAS 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 1880-10-01 — 53rd 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: DALLAS DITCH (1880-10-01). Immediately behind: P J NASH DITCH (1880-10-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11232.0 | 1880-10-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.0023 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 11779.0 | 1882-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 15433.0 | 1892-04-02 | 1897-05-15 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 133 |
| 16893.0 | 1896-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 142 |
| 53819.0 | 1997-05-08 | 1997-12-31 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFIS | |
| 62247.0 | 2020-06-04 | 2020-12-31 | 0.141 | 0.0 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
20CW2022, 97CW0059, 04CW0005, CA2669, CA0939, 20CW3100.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW2022 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | S |
97CW0059 | 2 | 1997-12-31 | S |
04CW0005 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
CA2669 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA0939 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
20CW3100 | 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 587 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 421 AF — 72% of that, and 4th 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 | 1,003 | 12th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 227 | 6.8 |
| 2012 | 253 | 1st lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 159 | 2.3 |
| 2013 | 766 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 212 | 5.8 |
| 2014 | 1,874 | 15th lowest of 15 · 319% of median | 213 | 8.2 |
| 2015 | 716 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 240 | 3.4 |
| 2016 | 586 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 179 | 3.1 |
| 2017 | 767 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 261 | 4.2 |
| 2018 | 440 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 244 | 2.9 |
| 2019 | 1,114 | 14th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 270 | 5.8 |
| 2020 | 359 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 106 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 587 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 210 | 3.1 |
| 2022 | 583 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 204 | 4.7 |
| 2023 | 1,015 | 13th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 185 | 6.4 |
| 2024 | 347 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 149 | 2.4 |
| 2025 | 421 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 169 | 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7275 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% 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.