Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BANKS DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1200865 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:40 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 1870-05-31 — 73rd most senior of the 1967 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: HAYDEN RANCH LOWER AUG STATION (1870-05-10). Immediately behind: FIBERBOARD PROD WELL 1 (1870-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7456.0 | 1870-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 54 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA7522, CA7520, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA7522 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
CA7520 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
02/03/1894 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | 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 141 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1989, came in at 53 AF — 38% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1958 | 141 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 1959 | 138 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 362 | 1.5 |
| 1960 | 148 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 366 | 0.3 |
| 1961 | 147 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 302 | 0.4 |
| 1962 | 21 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 61 | 0.4 |
| 1963 | 139 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 1964 | 150 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 366 | 0.3 |
| 1965 | 216 | 15th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 363 | 0.5 |
| 1966 | 195 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 336 | 0.3 |
| 1967 | 167 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 326 | 0.3 |
| 1968 | 132 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 263 | 0.3 |
| 1973 | 207 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 93 | 2.0 |
| 1987 | 20 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 54 | 0.3 |
| 1988 | 123 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 321 | 0.4 |
| 1989 | 53 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 220 | 0.4 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6074 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1911-1989 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.