Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ILLINOIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7100549 · 1 · DOLORES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1880-04-15 — 7th most senior of the 279 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: BURCH AND LONGWILL DITCH (1880-04-15). Immediately behind: DOLORES RV WELL # 1 (1880-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11063.0 | 1880-04-15 | 1892-02-01 | 3.1582 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | D-2 |
| 30671.0 | 1933-12-22 | 1963-03-22 | 0.473 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 62-40E |
| 46386.3634 | 1949-06-30 | 1977-12-31 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IND |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
83CW0103, CA0967, W0158, W0157, W0060, CA2000, CA0473, 91CW0057, 87CW0025.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
83CW0103 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
CA0967 | 3 | 1963-03-22 | O, S |
W0158 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
W0157 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
W0060 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
CA2000 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
CA0473 | 2 | 1892-02-01 | O |
91CW0057 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
87CW0025 | 2 | 1892-02-01 | 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 874 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 716 AF — 82% of that, and 6th 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 | 1,286 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 157 | 5.9 |
| 2012 | 1,274 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 170 | 5.6 |
| 2013 | 893 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 156 | 7.5 |
| 2014 | 505 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 116 | 4.0 |
| 2015 | 703 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 158 | 6.2 |
| 2016 | 559 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 180 | 5.9 |
| 2017 | 1,012 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 156 | 5.1 |
| 2018 | 1,304 | 15th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 179 | 7.4 |
| 2019 | 577 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 124 | 5.6 |
| 2020 | 1,072 | 12th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 266 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 874 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 290 | 6.3 |
| 2022 | 547 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 144 | 3.3 |
| 2023 | 938 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 152 | 7.4 |
| 2024 | 798 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 140 | 6.9 |
| 2025 | 716 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 152 | 6.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 12600 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 78% 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.