Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRESCENT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200590 · 1 · WEST SALT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:56 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 1911-07-20 — 261st 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: TAYLOR NO 1 DITCH (1908-07-02). Immediately behind: KELLEY DITCH (1912-08-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24085.2248 | 1911-07-20 | 1916-04-28 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179AAAB |
| 53325.45425 | 1974-05-15 | 1996-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
96CW0082, CA1863.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0082 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA1863 | 1 | 1916-04-28 | 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 9 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 5 AF — 56% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 109 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1211% of median | 185 | 0.5 |
| 1997 | 21 | 11th lowest of 15 · 233% of median | 43 | 0.3 |
| 1998 | 59 | 14th lowest of 15 · 656% of median | 186 | 0.3 |
| 1999 | 12 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 65 | 0.1 |
| 2000 | 3 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 34 | 0.1 |
| 2001 | 9 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 7 | 7th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 17 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 11 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 41 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 5 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 57 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 47 | 13th lowest of 15 · 522% of median | 192 | 0.3 |
| 2006 | 3 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 65 | 0.1 |
| 2007 | 3 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 72 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 33 | 12th lowest of 15 · 367% of median | 108 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 6 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 175 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 5 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 157 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-1 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.046).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 1716 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1994-2019 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.