Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ROBINSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1000580 · 1 · FOUNTAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1863-03-01 — 41st most senior of the 2864 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: GATES OWEN & HALL WELL 2 (1862-12-31). Immediately behind: M W STEELE WELL NO 4A (1863-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4808.0 | 1863-03-01 | 1882-03-06 | 10.45 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRAUG | 13 |
| 49793.0 | 1986-04-30 | 1986-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOMAUGRCH |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
86CW0031, CA0751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
86CW0031 | 3 | 1986-12-31 | O, S |
CA0751 | 1 | 1882-03-06 | 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 2,686 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1986, came in at 1,672 AF — 62% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1972 | 1,861 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 116 | 10.4 |
| 1973 | 2,158 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 134 | 10.4 |
| 1974 | 2,367 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 180 | 10.4 |
| 1975 | 3,409 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 214 | 10.4 |
| 1976 | 2,192 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 135 | 10.4 |
| 1977 | 3,322 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 197 | 10.5 |
| 1978 | 3,231 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 206 | 10.5 |
| 1979 | 2,687 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 159 | 10.5 |
| 1980 | 2,312 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 132 | 10.5 |
| 1981 | 3,020 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 163 | 10.5 |
| 1982 | 861 | 1st lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 73 | 10.5 |
| 1983 | 3,554 | 15th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 182 | 10.5 |
| 1984 | 2,686 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 140 | 10.4 |
| 1985 | 2,971 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 155 | 10.4 |
| 1986 | 1,672 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 109 | 14.0 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9383 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 68% of the irrigation seasons in 1922-1986 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.