Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ATWELL DITCH COON CREEK
Structure dossier · WDID 7201448 · 1 · COON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 1888-09-19 — 85th 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: BLACKMAN DUNLAP CLARK D (1888-09-19). Immediately behind: JOHNSON AND STUART DITCH (1888-09-26).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14142.0 | 1888-09-19 | 1890-02-07 | 0.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 17099.14093 | 1888-08-01 | 1898-03-19 | 0.586 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 93 |
| 17099.16954 | 1896-06-01 | 1898-03-19 | 0.781 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 96 |
| 18749.17806 | 1898-10-01 | 1905-10-14 | 0.072 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.18536 | 1900-10-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.032 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
89CW0273, CA0970, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0273 | 3 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA0970 | 2 | 1898-03-19 | S |
CA0273 | 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 197 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 542 AF — 275% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 199 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 113 | 1.4 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2010 | 178 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 98 | 1.4 |
| 2012 | 213 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 155 | 1.3 |
| 2013 | 186 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 153 | 1.4 |
| 2014 | 366 | 12th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 140 | 1.4 |
| 2015 | 447 | 14th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 202 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 127 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 148 | 1.3 |
| 2018 | 164 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 167 | 1.1 |
| 2019 | 131 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 162 | 1.2 |
| 2020 | 197 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 143 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 131 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 100 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 378 | 13th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 167 | 1.4 |
| 2023 | 365 | 11th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 188 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 542 | 15th lowest of 15 · 275% of median | 296 | 1.4 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4970 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% 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.