Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JAMES F DUFFY IRR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200603 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:34 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 1889-05-05 — 189th 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: GILT EDGE DITCH (1889-05-01). Immediately behind: WINTERS OR WOLFE DITCH (1889-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22995.1437 | 1889-05-05 | 1916-06-01 | 0.432 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.22584 | 1911-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.78 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 30895.23521 | 1914-05-26 | 1941-07-25 | 0.54 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA5812, CA2635, CA12208.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | S |
CA12208 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | 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 57 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 93 AF — 163% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 25 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 57 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 21 | 1.9 |
| 2004 | 49 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 29 | 1.5 |
| 2005 | 115 | 11th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 71 | 1.2 |
| 2006 | 77 | 9th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 41 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 40 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 31 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 202 | 14th lowest of 15 · 354% of median | 69 | 5.6 |
| 2009 | 130 | 12th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 110 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 226 | 15th lowest of 15 · 396% of median | 122 | 1.4 |
| 2011 | 152 | 13th lowest of 15 · 267% of median | 70 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 17 | 1.4 |
| 2015 | 38 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 22 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 42 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 22 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 20 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 11 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 93 | 10th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 184 | 1.0 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1695 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2023 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.