Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
P J NASH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800684 · 1 · DALLAS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:49 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 — 54th 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 PLACER DITCH (1880-10-01). Immediately behind: SCOTT MCNEIL DITCH (1880-10-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 | 0.521 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 11779.0 | 1882-04-01 | 1897-04-01 | 0.025 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 13270.0 | 1886-05-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.104 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 100 |
| 16039.0 | 1893-11-29 | 1897-05-15 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 137 |
| 54056.47787 | 1980-11-01 | 1998-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
98CW0209, CA0939, 87CW0119, 95CW0061.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0209 | 9 | 1998-12-31 | O, S |
CA0939 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
87CW0119 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
95CW0061 | 1 | 1897-04-01 | 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 464 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 426 AF — 92% of that, and 7th 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 | 464 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 156 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 133 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 546 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 133 | 4.9 |
| 2014 | 1,234 | 14th lowest of 15 · 266% of median | 109 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 1,208 | 13th lowest of 15 · 260% of median | 132 | 7.0 |
| 2016 | 1,187 | 12th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 151 | 7.3 |
| 2017 | 949 | 11th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 134 | 7.2 |
| 2018 | 153 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 173 | 4.1 |
| 2019 | 1,350 | 15th lowest of 15 · 291% of median | 159 | 9.6 |
| 2020 | 515 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 133 | 3.8 |
| 2021 | 404 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 133 | 4.2 |
| 2022 | 255 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 75 | 3.8 |
| 2023 | 365 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 103 | 3.0 |
| 2024 | 278 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 127 | 5.4 |
| 2025 | 426 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 205 | 2.1 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6472 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 40% 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.