Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPRING CREEK DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 7200888 · 1 · SPRING CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:29 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 1919-05-17 — 442nd 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: FREDERICK NO 2 D EXTENSION (BOYLE) (1919-05-01). Immediately behind: SPRING CREEK DITCH NO 2 (1919-05-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30895.25338 | 1919-05-17 | 1941-07-25 | 1.83 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.82 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA5812.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | 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 269 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 616 AF — 229% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 269 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 106 | 2.7 |
| 1988 | 90 | 5th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 62 | 1.0 |
| 1995 | 90 | 5th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 61 | 0.8 |
| 1996 | 818 | 14th lowest of 15 · 304% of median | 305 | 3.2 |
| 1998 | 30 | 4th lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 1999 | 293 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 304 | 1.4 |
| 2000 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 121 | 7th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 98 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 704 | 13th lowest of 15 · 262% of median | 137 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 555 | 11th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 154 | 2.7 |
| 2016 | 541 | 10th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 174 | 2.7 |
| 2017 | 855 | 15th lowest of 15 · 318% of median | 167 | 2.7 |
| 2018 | 616 | 12th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 160 | 2.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2644 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1976-2018 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.