Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SPRING CREEK DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 7700580 · 1 · LITTLE NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1911-05-25 — 31st most senior of the 187 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: MCMULLEN DITCH (1902-11-17). Immediately behind: L A SAPPINGTON DITCH (1913-04-25).

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
22962.224241911-05-251928-06-05 1.50.0 CIRR #200

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 103 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 27 AF — 26% of that, and 1st 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)
2011 144 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median 108 2.2
2012 99 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median 78 1.0
2013 162 13th lowest of 15 · 157% of median 79 2.2
2014 51 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median 83 0.6
2015 95 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median 118 1.7
2016 90 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median 87 1.3
2017 175 14th lowest of 15 · 170% of median 109 1.0
2018 113 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median 166 0.7
2019 87 3rd lowest of 15 · 84% of median 80 1.1
2020 103 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 55 1.1
2021 160 12th lowest of 15 · 155% of median 154 1.3
2022 253 15th lowest of 15 · 246% of median 157 1.4
2023 92 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median 58 1.1
2024 137 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median 79 1.3
2025 27 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median 70 0.2

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 7425 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.