Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TATE CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200909 · 1 · TATE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:40 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 1889-05-31 — 93rd 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: ATWELL DITCH MESA CREEK (1888-08-29). Immediately behind: MARINERS IRR DITCH (1888-08-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16513.14396 | 1889-05-31 | 1895-10-15 | 0.96 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 89 |
| 49308.19509 | 1903-06-01 | 1985-12-31 | 1.19 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | |
| 49566.0 | 1985-09-15 | 1985-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | FIS |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
88CW0394, 85CW0283, CA0852.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0394 | 2 | 1985-12-31 | S |
85CW0283 | 2 | 1985-12-31 | S |
CA0852 | 1 | 1895-10-15 | 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 699 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 993 AF — 142% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 868 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 147 | 5.3 |
| 2011 | 1,055 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 161 | 5.6 |
| 2012 | 1,043 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 176 | 6.4 |
| 2013 | 906 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 173 | 5.2 |
| 2014 | 699 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 4.5 |
| 2015 | 864 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 154 | 6.8 |
| 2016 | 276 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 66 | 2.6 |
| 2017 | 1,244 | 15th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 170 | 5.8 |
| 2018 | 517 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 174 | 1.6 |
| 2019 | 449 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 145 | 2.5 |
| 2020 | 447 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 161 | 4.5 |
| 2021 | 344 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 187 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 425 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 143 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 686 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 170 | 8.0 |
| 2024 | 993 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 299 | 9.3 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7150 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.