JOHNSON AND EDWARDS DITCH ☆ My Water

Where this structure is measured

A green link is DWR's own: either its telemetry inventory maps this WDID to that station, or the station is named for this WDID (0700553 → 0700553A). An amber one is ours — the station sits within 250 m and shares a distinctive word with this structure's name, which is a strong hint rather than a DWR statement that this gage meters this structure. Wrong? Tell us.

Flowing now

0.0 cfs as of 2026-10-14 02:00 (2.1 h ago)

Zero is a real reading: the gage is reporting, and it says this structure is not diverting right now.

Provisional 15-minute telemetry from JNEDITCO ↗ (JOHNSON AND EDWARDS DITCH). Raw, not the approved record — it is never merged into the diversion history below. DWR publishes the official diversion record after the water year closes and is approved, which is why that record ends months back while this reads minutes ago.

In short

JOHNSON AND EDWARDS DITCH holds 3 decreed rights on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. A call at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER COMPACT on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER (1897-06-13), and 1 other currently reaches it: junior rights called out. 1 further call state no district and sit outside this one, so it is counted here rather than assumed either way. That is today's position; the weeks ahead cannot be projected for it: no administrative call record for this basin. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 1,915 acre-feet. That use is falling by about 148.5 acre-feet a year over 15 years (p=0.017530703373053846). It was a party to 3 court cases that also touched 11 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (11 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Current administration

● Junior rights called out — call at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER COMPACT (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1897-06-13).

● Junior rights called out — call at STERLING IRR CO DITCH 1 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1901-02-16).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: no administrative call record for this basin. Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1872-06-01 — 13th most senior of the 7708 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: BIJOU CANAL (1871-10-01)☆. Immediately behind: TRAUTWEIN WELL 7119 (1872-06-01)☆.

On MAINSTEM at river mile 168.3, it is 378th of 384 down the reach. Immediately upstream: PREWITT INLET CANAL☆. Immediately downstream: TETSEL CLOVERLEAF DIVR☆.

Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.

Decreed rights (3)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 63.0 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 63.0 cfs in priority (100% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 100.0% of days.

Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

5 decreed actions on record across 4 court cases: 90CW0183, W8103, 81CW0434, CA0433.

191 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 21 water-court documents across 5 cases, including 4 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-09-20.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 0100526 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 3 court cases that also touched 11 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

Also a party to 1 omnibus adjudication (CA0433, 80 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,915 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 534 AF — 28% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-148 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).

Its reference gage, North Sterling Canal: no clear flow trend.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.