Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH EMMONS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600553 · DITCH · BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:18 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1863-06-01 — 76th most senior of the 1867 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: 0602417 (1863-05-01). Immediately behind: 0605866 (1863-06-06).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 29.1, it is 72nd of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: STROMQUIST POND 4. Immediately downstream: STROMQUIST POND 3.
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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4900.0 | 1863-06-01 | 1882-06-02 | 47.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 52698.0 | 1994-04-13 | 1994-12-31 | 0.0 | 50.0 | C | STOIRRCOMINDRECFISFIRAUGEVPWLD |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
94CW0062, CA1288.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0062 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA1288 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | 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 627 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,029 AF — 164% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 617 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 68 | 8.0 |
| 2011 | 294 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 47 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 908 | 12th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 107 | 8.0 |
| 2013 | 417 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 40 | 9.9 |
| 2014 | 386 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 42 | 9.1 |
| 2015 | 627 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 9.5 |
| 2016 | 868 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 91 | 9.3 |
| 2017 | 536 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 54 | 6.6 |
| 2018 | 285 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 21 | 9.3 |
| 2019 | 837 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 75 | 9.0 |
| 2020 | 1,211 | 14th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 127 | 20.7 |
| 2021 | 672 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 118 | 7.9 |
| 2023 | 2 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 7 | 0.2 |
| 2024 | 1,318 | 15th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 185 | 6.8 |
| 2025 | 1,029 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 179 | 8.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, RURAL DITCH: no clear flow trend.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | current | 7052 measured days, newest 285 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.