Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UPPER SAXBURY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7300519 · 1 · LITTLE DOLORES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1885-04-01 — 2nd most senior of the 221 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: FRUITA WATER WORKS PL (1885-03-31). Immediately behind: CHIQUITO DOLORES DITCH (1885-12-31).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17610.12875 | 1885-04-01 | 1901-05-02 | 0.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
| 17610.13149 | 1885-12-31 | 1901-05-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 98 |
| 17610.1324 | 1886-04-01 | 1901-05-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99 |
| 17610.1398 | 1888-04-10 | 1901-05-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 102 |
| 17610.15074 | 1891-04-09 | 1901-05-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 22848.17806 | 1898-10-01 | 1916-06-01 | 4.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 253 |
| 62822.17806 | 1898-10-01 | 2022-12-31 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
22CW3092, CA2635, CA9529, 16CW3078.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
22CW3092 | 2 | 2022-12-31 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | S |
CA9529 | 1 | 1901-05-02 | S |
16CW3078 | 4 | 1901-05-02 | 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 416 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 143 AF — 34% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 831 | 12th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 165 | 3.1 |
| 2012 | 322 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 179 | 2.7 |
| 2013 | 322 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 202 | 3.1 |
| 2014 | 546 | 9th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 212 | 3.6 |
| 2015 | 397 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 221 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 925 | 13th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 214 | 4.3 |
| 2017 | 947 | 14th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 198 | 4.3 |
| 2018 | 209 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 110 | 3.1 |
| 2019 | 562 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 165 | 4.3 |
| 2020 | 177 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 98 | 3.3 |
| 2021 | 119 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 79 | 4.4 |
| 2022 | 416 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 198 | 6.2 |
| 2023 | 681 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 199 | 4.3 |
| 2024 | 1,149 | 15th lowest of 15 · 276% of median | 220 | 5.9 |
| 2025 | 143 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 85 | 3.0 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8160 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 76% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.