Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THISTLE SPRINGS DITCH H.G. 1
Structure dossier · WDID 7200912 · 1 · COON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:50 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 1893-05-01 — 98th 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: MCGEOCH DITCH (1888-07-01). Immediately behind: WASSON WELL NO 2 (1900-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17099.15827 | 1893-05-01 | 1898-03-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 95 |
| 34419.19875 | 1904-06-01 | 1959-07-21 | 1.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA8303, 95CW0191.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
95CW0191 | 1 | 1898-03-19 | 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 231 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 422 AF — 183% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 295 | 9th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 217 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 127 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 343 | 1.1 |
| 2011 | 591 | 15th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 347 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 298 | 10th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 366 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 301 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 363 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 349 | 12th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 304 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 231 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 181 | 1.3 |
| 2016 | 132 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 130 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 34 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 213 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 150 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 241 | 0.6 |
| 2020 | 180 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 338 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 153 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 349 | 0.5 |
| 2022 | 218 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 259 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 404 | 13th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 150 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 422 | 14th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 177 | 1.8 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 8197 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1989-2024 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.