Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

STOTZ WASTE WATER DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 7200901 · 1 · PLATEAU CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 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 1891-08-31 — 193rd 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: C D LUDE DITCH (1890-12-10). Immediately behind: SPRING GRUNDEI DITCH (1893-07-24).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
22995.152181891-08-311916-06-01 0.6480.0 CIRRDOM

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 218 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 142 AF — 65% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1992 216 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median 170 0.6
1993 237 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median 184 0.6
1994 355 14th lowest of 15 · 163% of median 275 0.6
1995 392 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median 304 0.6
1996 277 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median 216 0.6
1997 236 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median 184 0.6
1998 191 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median 149 0.6
1999 218 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 170 0.6
2000 119 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median 93 0.6
2001 26 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median 21 0.6
2002 241 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median 182 1.3
2003 65 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median 67 0.5
2006 317 13th lowest of 15 · 145% of median 214 0.8
2007 206 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median 161 0.6
2010 142 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median 103 0.7

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4438 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 63% of the irrigation seasons in 1977-2010 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.