Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NATE CREEK NO 3 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800675 · 1 · COW CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 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 1882-06-01 — 241st 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: SHAREN NO 1 DITCH (1882-05-01). Immediately behind: WEST SIDE DITCH (1883-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29554.1184 | 1882-06-01 | 1942-05-11 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28 |
| 40646.28428 | 1927-11-01 | 1971-09-13 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | 14 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2710, CA1959.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2710 | 1 | 1971-09-13 | S |
CA1959 | 1 | 1942-05-11 | 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 606 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,001 AF — 165% of that, and 14th 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 | 1,030 | 15th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 104 | 6.3 |
| 2012 | 389 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 76 | 5.1 |
| 2013 | 589 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 112 | 3.6 |
| 2014 | 210 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 52 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 363 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 67 | 4.1 |
| 2016 | 457 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 66 | 4.9 |
| 2017 | 606 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 119 | 4.2 |
| 2018 | 471 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 58 | 5.4 |
| 2019 | 853 | 12th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 85 | 5.8 |
| 2020 | 764 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 103 | 5.5 |
| 2021 | 755 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 107 | 5.8 |
| 2022 | 633 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 86 | 5.7 |
| 2023 | 908 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 86 | 6.2 |
| 2024 | 580 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 61 | 6.2 |
| 2025 | 1,001 | 14th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 92 | 6.5 |
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 | 6304 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.