Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STANDERING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 8000834 · DITCH · ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:13 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
● Fully called out — call at LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
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 1877-05-01 — 532nd 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: 8000746 (1877-05-01). Immediately behind: 0801404 (1877-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9983.0 | 1877-05-01 | 1889-10-18 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1889-10-18 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0341, 85CW0328, 84CW0420.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0341 | 1 | 1889-10-18 | O |
85CW0328 | 1 | 1889-10-18 | O |
84CW0420 | 1 | 1889-10-18 | 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 87 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 186 AF — 214% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 27 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 4 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 213 | 12th lowest of 15 · 245% of median | 129 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 529 | 15th lowest of 15 · 608% of median | 173 | 1.8 |
| 2009 | 286 | 14th lowest of 15 · 329% of median | 146 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 75 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 62 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 214 | 13th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 111 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 32 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 44 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 79 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 111 | 9th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 34 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 111 | 9th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 52 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 60 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 43 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 87 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 73 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 58 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 186 | 11th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 112 | 1.0 |
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 B (7/10 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 | 1566 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 17% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2019 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.