← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

JOHN ERPS DITCH NO 5

Structure dossier · WDID 1300608 · 1 · GRAPE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1884-06-05406th most senior of the 1017 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: JOHN ERPS DITCH NO 4 (1884-06-04). Immediately behind: FRANK & ELZE DITCH (1884-06-05).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
12575.01884-06-051896-03-12 0.40.0 CIRR 379

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 21 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 1 AF — 5% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1999 31 11th lowest of 15 · 148% of median 40 0.4
2001 10 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median 14 0.4
2002 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
2003 16 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median 22 0.4
2004 25 9th lowest of 15 · 119% of median 32 0.4
2005 94 15th lowest of 15 · 448% of median 60 0.8
2008 34 12th lowest of 15 · 162% of median 45 0.4
2009 21 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 30 0.4
2010 17 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median 24 0.4
2014 40 14th lowest of 15 · 190% of median 53 0.4
2015 25 9th lowest of 15 · 119% of median 39 0.3
2016 9 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median 24 0.2
2017 34 12th lowest of 15 · 162% of median 46 0.4
2019 14 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median 29 0.4
2021 1 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median 2 0.4

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 599 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 3% of the irrigation seasons in 1938-2021 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.