Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SLAGHT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 8000660 · DITCH · NORTH FORK SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (23 active call(s) checked).
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 1863-05-01 — 111th most senior of the 21881 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: 0803832 (1863-05-01). Immediately behind: 8000661 (1863-05-01).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4869.0 | 1863-05-01 | 1913-05-22 | 0.257 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA1678, 81CW0253, 79CW0339, 16CW3197, 03CW0246, 03CW0239, 03CW0238.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1678 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
81CW0253 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
79CW0339 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
16CW3197 | 2 | 1913-05-22 | O |
03CW0246 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
03CW0239 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
03CW0238 | 2 | 1913-05-22 | 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 247 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 269 AF — 109% of that, and 10th lowest of the 14 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 257 | 9th lowest of 14 · 104% of median | — | 146 | 0.9 |
| 2005 | 248 | 8th lowest of 14 · 100% of median | — | 91 | 1.4 |
| 2006 | 240 | 6th lowest of 14 · 97% of median | — | 89 | 1.4 |
| 2007 | 342 | 13th lowest of 14 · 138% of median | — | 126 | 1.4 |
| 2008 | 429 | 14th lowest of 14 · 174% of median | — | 117 | 1.9 |
| 2009 | 169 | 1st lowest of 14 · 68% of median | — | 120 | 0.7 |
| 2010 | — | no recorded volume | 522 | 0 | — |
| 2011 | 238 | 5th lowest of 14 · 96% of median | — | 119 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 334 | 12th lowest of 14 · 135% of median | — | 135 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 246 | 7th lowest of 14 · 100% of median | — | 67 | 1.9 |
| 2014 | 189 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 76% of median | — | 69 | 1.4 |
| 2015 | 233 | 4th lowest of 14 · 94% of median | — | 90 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 225 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 91% of median | — | 91 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 284 | 11th lowest of 14 · 115% of median | — | 108 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 269 | 10th lowest of 14 · 109% of median | — | 102 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4408 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2018 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.