Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ATWELL DITCH MESA CREEK
Structure dossier · WDID 7200516 · 1 · MESA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:00 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1888-08-29 — 92nd most senior of the 2166 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: ANDERSON WELL (1890-12-31). Immediately behind: TATE CREEK DITCH (1889-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16513.14121 | 1888-08-29 | 1895-10-15 | 1.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 88 |
| 22995.19478 | 1903-05-01 | 1916-06-01 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 22995.22773 | 1912-05-08 | 1916-06-01 | 0.18 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2635, 84CW0218, CA0852.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2635 | 3 | 1916-06-01 | S |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | S |
CA0852 | 1 | 1895-10-15 | 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 1,027 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,273 AF — 124% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,380 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 344 | 6.5 |
| 2011 | 1,385 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 319 | 10.1 |
| 2012 | 1,027 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 353 | 9.4 |
| 2013 | 999 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 365 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 1,468 | 14th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 365 | 5.1 |
| 2015 | 1,069 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 298 | 4.2 |
| 2016 | 1,251 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 200 | 8.6 |
| 2017 | 747 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 159 | 7.4 |
| 2018 | 590 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 183 | 5.2 |
| 2019 | 1,490 | 15th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 198 | 7.4 |
| 2020 | 361 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 170 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 314 | 1st lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 182 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | 897 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 195 | 4.5 |
| 2023 | 845 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 168 | 4.8 |
| 2024 | 1,273 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 305 | 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 | 11126 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 95% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.