Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JAMES STEWART DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800619 · 1 · DALLAS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 1888-05-01 — 129th 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: CHIPETA CUTLER DITCH (1887-06-01). Immediately behind: SHORTLINE DITCH (1888-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14001.0 | 1888-05-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115 |
| 24564.0 | 1917-04-03 | 1920-02-26 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 19 |
| 54056.47787 | 1980-11-01 | 1998-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
98CW0210, CA1581, CA0939.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0210 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA1581 | 1 | 1920-02-26 | S |
CA0939 | 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 544 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 212 AF — 39% 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 | 425 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 118 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 74 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 79 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 585 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 120 | 4.9 |
| 2014 | 1,168 | 12th lowest of 15 · 215% of median | 136 | 5.1 |
| 2015 | 1,434 | 15th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 151 | 6.9 |
| 2016 | 1,288 | 14th lowest of 15 · 237% of median | 151 | 6.7 |
| 2017 | 1,067 | 11th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 139 | 6.5 |
| 2018 | 57 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 78 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 1,211 | 13th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 146 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 446 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 100 | 4.8 |
| 2021 | 544 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 6.8 |
| 2022 | 578 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 60 | 9.9 |
| 2023 | 298 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 88 | 3.9 |
| 2024 | 163 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 64 | 3.2 |
| 2025 | 212 | 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 62 | 3.2 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6763 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% 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.