Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHOTWELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200867 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1888-09-01 — 81st 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: PLATEAU FLOUR MILL DITCH (1888-09-01). Immediately behind: KING DITCH (1888-09-05).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14124.0 | 1888-09-01 | 1890-02-07 | 1.59 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65 |
| 14135.0 | 1888-09-12 | 1890-02-07 | 2.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 70 |
| 22995.14665 | 1890-02-24 | 1916-06-01 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.25688 | 1920-05-01 | 1959-07-21 | 1.86 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA8303, CA2635, CA9529, CA0273, 84CW0218.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA2635 | 2 | 1916-06-01 | O, S |
CA9529 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | O |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | 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 546 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 556 AF — 102% of that, and 9th 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 | 593 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 98 | 5.8 |
| 2011 | 906 | 15th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 152 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 643 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 152 | 3.9 |
| 2013 | 546 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 141 | 3.9 |
| 2014 | 307 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 99 | 3.1 |
| 2015 | 497 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 132 | 4.8 |
| 2016 | 453 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 117 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 714 | 13th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 168 | 4.8 |
| 2018 | 408 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 119 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 611 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 136 | 3.9 |
| 2020 | 536 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 132 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 382 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 144 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 525 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 153 | 3.5 |
| 2023 | 831 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 145 | 5.2 |
| 2024 | 556 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 121 | 4.0 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7113 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.