Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WOOD PERRY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800781 · 1 · DALLAS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:41 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 1882-04-01 — 77th 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: SPRINGFIELD CORRIE DITCH (1882-04-01). Immediately behind: SPENCE DITCH PUMP (1882-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11779.0 | 1882-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.0212 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 11818.0 | 1882-05-10 | 1897-05-15 | 3.612 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 66 |
| 54786.4946 | 1985-06-01 | 2000-12-31 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
00CW0052, W3229, CA0939, 82CW0243, 80CW0320, 79CW0019, 16CW0069, 15CW3011.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
00CW0052 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
W3229 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA0939 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
82CW0243 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
80CW0320 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
79CW0019 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
16CW0069 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
15CW3011 | 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 1,849 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,918 AF — 104% of that, and 10th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,007 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 169 | 10.2 |
| 2012 | 1,256 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 217 | 5.4 |
| 2013 | 1,448 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 4 | 190 | 9.1 |
| 2014 | 1,241 | 1st lowest of 15 · 67% of median | — | 141 | 7.9 |
| 2015 | 1,317 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | — | 175 | 7.6 |
| 2016 | 1,786 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 176 | 10.9 |
| 2017 | 1,923 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 193 | 6.9 |
| 2018 | 1,473 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 14 | 221 | 8.8 |
| 2019 | 2,057 | 13th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 191 | 10.3 |
| 2020 | 1,527 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 7 | 202 | 9.3 |
| 2021 | 2,100 | 14th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 2 | 231 | 8.6 |
| 2022 | 1,849 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 6 | 232 | 7.2 |
| 2023 | 2,933 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | — | 294 | 10.9 |
| 2024 | 1,905 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 202 | 7.2 |
| 2025 | 1,918 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 4 | 187 | 8.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+52 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 9115 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% 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.